“Influencer”
“Influencer”
Or, as I’ve heard it, moving above and below decks regularly.
TIL I’m a transwoman.
Oh yeah, it’s easy enough to beat one you know how.
Yes, thanks to moderators who abuse the system, and lazy admins who don’t hold them to account.
Reddit uses fingerprinting techniques to track you across accounts. You need to look into defeating these tactics in order to successfully register (and keep) a new account.
Change browser, block html canvas, change IP address, etc. Also time plays a factor. Leave it a couple of weeks.
Or, recognise that Reddit has become completely overrun with shitposting bots and has little in the way of interesting content to offer these days, and move on.
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.
Security through obscurity. Solid move.
MMA
Mexican Martial Arts?
LMAO. Imagine thinking this is a bug.
Cue every kid in Iowa telling teacher their pronouns are Fr/Fi/Fo/Fum for a laugh.
Yeah, it has the same initials as “Atlassian Intelligence”. It could really confuse people.
Today it’s immigrants and trans people.
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.
Main home and a holiday home/cabin or similar. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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.
Fair enough. If you want to solve the problem of gender equality, give it to the experts.
Not to mention it’ll work terribly in most light conditions.
Bonus points if you use an LLM to generate said illegible nonsense.
My work machine is W11 and has options to change it. Not one of those stupid ‘home’ vs ‘pro’ version things is it?
And that’s their only “good” product.
The rest is utter garbageware, designed for one purpose: to check boxes on RFPs.