According to WHIO, who obtained an “investigative file” and communications within the office, Rodgers said he was prescribed sleep aids and that his ‘out of character’ actions were a “documented side effect.”

Ah, the classic Roseanne defense. Most people don’t start spewing hate under the influence of medication if they don’t normally use that kind of language when they’re sober.

We draw, somehow, more votes from Trump.

Weird. Who would have thought batshit crazy would also like greedy, hateful, and stupid?

This isn’t a smoking gun.

You can’t trust that ChatGPT is telling the truth, but also the use of copyrighted material is acceptable under a fair use standard written into US copyright law. Whether it is fair use or not is up to a court to decide, but “without permission” doesn’t automatically mean “illegally.”

Tech bro grifters aren’t punk.

Hence the desire for a single player offline version of the game…

Not everyone believes that devs are the authority on what makes a game fun, which is why mods are so common on PC games.

but that’s part of it, just like irl.

Some people might not want annoying aspects of IRL in their fantasy escapism games involving roleplay…

That’s the part I always hated. It was hostile towards people who liked the lore but didn’t want to group up with some guy named LaserButt4000 who didn’t want to go to the same dungeon as you, but was happy to get your rare loot in a bad roll of the dice.

Private servers with scaling for dungeon soloing were a godsend. WoW is actually awesome as a single player game. It’s unfortunate the devs never realized that.

A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

That’s a false dilemma. There’s a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don’t believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn’t protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren’t protected and are considered harmful.

Add time tracking for time tracking with every other task.

It’s also possible to be a person who genuinely cares about classic art and the environment already. And it’s also possible to be a poor person with little to no power to influence the fossil fuel industry. Chiding people for not having the privilege of free time and minimal obligations to protest isn’t very productive. Again, change needs to happen at the top and it’s not going to be achieved through appeals to emotion or coercion via symbolic or actual threats to famous art or sites.

I will not be fair, the publication isn’t. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that’s all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn’t an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don’t need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won’t come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that’s a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn’t have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

I completely forgot about that game until you mentioned it. Fun times.

There’s not enough information that I’d be comfortable drawing conclusions about this. One person’s past flame can be another person’s one who got away. It’s entirely possible she’s keeping tabs on you online in a method you’re not aware of, but if you don’t know that she’s intentionally moved to be close to you and she hasn’t done anything concerning like made threats or faked a pregnancy or created circumstances that compel you to interact with her against your normal inclinations, I wouldn’t guess stalking. Some people do coincidentally reconnect.

That said, the important question is whether you want to engage with her or not going forward. If you don’t, I wouldn’t lead her on by giving her any more attention. Make a clean break and just tell her you’re not interested. If she reacts with melodrama or stalking behavior, then you’ll definitely know you made the right decision.

If you are interested in possibly pursuing something with her or at least giving her a chance, be honest that you’re a little freaked out about how she’s previously behaved. You shouldn’t proceed with her thinking that the behavior was not concerning. She should respect your comfort levels if she wants a relationship. If she’s dismissive of your concerns and comfort, it’s a big red flag that you shouldn’t engage further.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.