Made no sense to me neither till I read the article…

The company gives people a card signed by other employees whenever they resign or whatever. Only 3 people signed it so they didn’t give it to her. She then sues.

But it would be an easy war of attrition no? How many died/almost died because Texas couldn’t handle a lil iced? How long could those states last without resources from outside? How much of their materials are usable raw?

Do the “much guns” states actually have a decent bit of knowledgeable people? Being able to shoot a gun is fine and all but a war is far more than that.

The biggest worry would probably be the ones already in the military who could/would easily sabotage any efforts. And yes, drones are easily beating rifles when it comes to depleting each other’s resources.

I know fuck-all about guns and war but my armchair is warmed up.

How do you stay accountable when you don’t set limits in your own term?

You don’t. Even if they’re in office, there’s nothing you can do. What do you think they’d do to Biden? Jail him? Fine him? You vote in people who align with what you want put in place, then have the separate parts of government check each other.

I don’t mind long-term goals, we need them, but there should be milestones

I addressed that in my previous comment. Nobody’s wasting time and resources. Such a limitation would cripple every president and make them damn near useless. They’d spend most of their time in office recalculating milestones, which would be incredibly small, at best, and impossible at worst.

frankly I’m surprised it’s apparently an unpopular opinion.

Because it kinda indicates that you haven’t really thought about this or you’re just not aware of how things happen in life. You’re coming off as management that’s never worked on the floor and have no idea about what’s actually feasible. It’s a good way to have everybody despise you.

Using this as an example, let’s say it was done at the start of Biden’s 1st year, what percentage should he set per what time period, and do you really expect car manufacturers to recreate their vehicles each period?

Manufacturers need time to meet targets. And the final percentage would be incredibly small, because it would be only four years. Whenever you see a product hit the market, development has starts years prior.

What targets exactly? Should every policy be limited to just their term? That completely removes the possibility of any target that takes a long time to reach. It would be a waste of time and resources to do smaller increments and then revisit them.

Almost every policy put into place will have effects that future presidents have to deal with. Do you actually care about this in principle or do you just not like this policy?

Finally, a sane response. Of course they’ll “sound similar” because they’re both female voices attempting to come off as friendly with an American accent.

I’m more on the side of opposing AI implementations but people are really reaching with this one. I’m assuming it was pulled just so they can get their legal defense in order.

This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything

Because then they’ll give up whoever it was that they used to voice the AI and it’ll be mostly over. The thing is though that if they rush into a lawsuit too eagerly, nobody’s going to want to work with them under a similar contract.

Well, they get the snuff out competition and get to hold on to IPs. The thing is though: People are saying that there are good indie games, but I won’t ever hear shit about said games unless I specifically go looking for them, which will almost never happen nowadays.

Even when I allow ads, game ads are pretty rare. AAA games were almost impossible to miss because there’s always enough buzz, positive or negative, for the big ones.

What are the job titles of the people on these teams? I would suppose physics and CS. How are those job sectors looking in terms of vacancies? I’d think that there are more workers than jobs and that this is a ploy to get less experienced people for cheaper but they’re trying to rehire the same employees.

Nobody wants to make and maintain an account for every place they want to pay something for.

They could have replaced “check” with “cash”. Same idea.

It’s the second ruling in favor of trans rights this month from the 4th Circuit, a once-conservative court that has become a trailblazer in the realm of transgender rights.

Not bad. Definitely not something I expected to read.

The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which recently allowed Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Of course. This Supreme Court’s really gonna do a number on the justice system for decades to come huh?

Most definitely. They were complaining about them not making a profit, and they really thought blaming the few people using an Adblock made sense.

It’s all to get more Premium subscriptions. The ads are an intentional problem with the “obvious solution” being advertised right there on the homepage.

Sure, it’s possible, but no one on lemmy is actually doing that

I literally did.

Democrats did a good thing. Stop there.

Nah. You can’t give me a good reason to do so because there isn’t.

I don’t have to fall for your sealioning shit

You don’t know what sealionong is. 1. It has to be repetitive or be multiple requests 2. It has to be in spite of requests that were previously fulfilled. It’s been one request. You said I misrepresented you. So quote where I did. It would literally be you scrolling up and copy/pasting it. It’s one simple request. Hell, my comments have been far longer than yours. If anyone’s a troll here, it’s you. You’ve yet to make a substantial point.

And I might as well address your other comment in this one too.

The analogy was never about Democrats; it was about being able to criticize anyone while still accepting that they did a good thing overall. You’re the dumb one that tried to jump all over the place.

I’m just jumping in to call out your “oh we would never do such a horrible thing as not vote” bullshit.

You mean the thing that you brought up? Absolutely nobody said anything about not voting. If this is a troll, at least do something that isn’t this blatantly dumb. C’mon, at least make a comment that’ll demand more than a quick 2-minute response from me. I clearly have the free time. I miss the days when trolls were at left somewhat intelligent. It’s also an apt analogy for the situation it was actually getting used for. The other commenter was able to interact with it perfectly.

But you know what, I said I was done before and now I’m gonna stand by it unless you can actually back up the stupid claims you’re making. Quote where I misrepresented you or I guess we really are done.

EDIT: Holy hell! I only now noticed that I’m responding to two different users tag teaming in and out. No way in hell someone’s that dumb to not just point out that it’s someone else. Dude really said sealioning.

Soooo, where’s the quote my guy? Instead of actually responding with something of worth, you make a piss poor insult that doesn’t even make sense. I’m not even sure what part of my comment that’s supposed to be in response to, because again, I’m not stupid. Why would any kind of propaganda work on me?

Nevertheless, seeing as you really don’t have anything of substance to add, I guess we’re done here.

Insulting? You’re insulted by any kind of criticism huh? Yeah, makes sense. And that’s not in any way how this works. That’s not at all analogous to what we’re talking about anymore.

You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point.

Quote it then. You’ve done literally nothing to actually show where or how I’ve done that.

YOU never made a reasonable case.

My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.

Now you’re trying to make this about the Democrats as a whole. You’re really not able to think about things in parts huh? I can criticize something taking far too long(which, if you saw my response to another comment, removes pretty much all actual criticism from this specific case) and still accept that they did something good. Merely asking why it took this long isn’t, by any means, saying that them doing the thing was wrong. I’ve said this multiple times already.

Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden.

Let me know when left leaning persons have started voting, in significant numbers, for Biden merely because they have criticisms for Biden. That’s actually asinine. Actually going along with that same logic, do you think Republicans and centrists magically start voting for Democrats if any criticism is levied from their side?

Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists

Nah, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to ignore every negative thing that “my side” does just because you think it means the other side will lose. As I said before that’s literally giving leeway for them to do absolutely anything they want, as long as they’re at least marginally better than Republicans. I’ve gladly accepted that Net Neutrality is back, but I’m not going to realize it’s only back now after years, and ignore it without good reason. At this point, we’re not even arguing over the actual Net Neutrality case anymore.

Fascinating how there’s no logical reason for that to happen, but carry on. Doesn’t look like you ever cared to actually make a reasonable case for yourself.

But the judge and prosecutors should know that this would happen right? I’m a tad above a layman but isn’t it obvious that this would happen? It’s so negligent I’m almost convinced that it was negligence. Or is it that they usually get away with this kind of thing?

You and I don’t disagree here. The guy I replied to is arguing that we shouldn’t really even be asking why it took this long, because we eventually got it. The act of questioning why it took this long shouldn’t immediately get a response of “at least it’s reversed now, stop complaining”. The guy saving the drowning man could very well have very valid reasons as to why he’s waiting, that we don’t know. But if we don’t know them, we kinda have to ask don’t we?

I’m yet to see anyone get the reason for it taking this long and not accept it. It’s been ~6 months since they got back the FCC. The complaint isn’t over a measly 6 months. That’s an acceptable amount of time really. The first assumption is usually that they’ve had the ability to reverse it much closer to when Biden took office. Waiting until near to the end of a 4 year term is a really long time.

Now imagine their replacement actively wants to drown people and for some reason there are people who think both sides are reasonable choices

Nobody here is saying that. Do you really think the person who’s wondering why it took this long is sitting there saying the Republicans made a reasonable choice to remove net neutrality? Really?

others are backing the pro-drowning guy.

Who cares? They’re irrelevant to this. We already disagree with them. We’re likely never going to agree with them. They’re not criticizing how long it took to reverse Net Neutrality. They’re mad that it was reimplemented at all.

I’ll take the guy who took his time.

What? Who isn’t? Again, the action of reimplementing Net Neutrality isn’t being criticized. Them taking this long is what’s being criticized. Or do I need to ask you to give evidence of left leaning people complaining that Net Neutrality was reimplemented?

You’re advocating for just taking whatever you get as long there’s someone worse. With that same logic, the guy could wait and watch the drowning guy get bitten by something in the water and get injured trying to save himself and then save him. You’d still accept that no problem huh? You’re saying that there’s no reason to improve, because at least you’re better than the other guy.

Furthermore, everyone I’ve seen so far has accepted the reason for it taking this long. So again, the way you’re framing this is strange.

They’re not being criticized for doing the right thing. They’re being criticized for the negative aspect. Many others have answered it, but the way you’re framing this is kinda strange.

You’d equally criticize anyone else that you thought had the power to save a drowning man but sat there watching for a while before finally saving him.