The real world.
I still reckon we should all just refer to him as “Thirty Four”.
Let’s not forget he stole an election with the help of a corrupt Republican governor and the Supreme Court, either.
Good point. I’m so used to using unisex bathrooms at home…
Thanks, I guess. Shame I can’t compete in the olympics or read books to children any more though.
TIL I’m a transwoman.
The law: Do what we say, don’t challenge us, give us all your wealth, we can change the law at any time.
“On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” - Charles Babbage
Top-level comments always get more votes than replies.
I increasingly feel like religious indoctrination in childhood creates a kind of mental illness or disability by disrupting the development of critical thinking skills.
This is not accidental. Many religious scholars have talked about the need to “instruct” children when they’re very young - by the age of three or four.
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
MMA
Mexican Martial Arts?
Cue every kid in Iowa telling teacher their pronouns are Fr/Fi/Fo/Fum for a laugh.
Don’t worry, the bigots who are backing him won’t let him forget.
Just give it a couple of years for the hype/boom/bust cycle to complete, then it’ll settle down and people will start using the tech appropriately.
Removed by mod
This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.
The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.
A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.
The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:
the defendant—
- (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
- (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
- © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…
But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.
It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.
Not to mention it’ll work terribly in most light conditions.
“Influencer”