Heck, people are still producing new games for the Commodore 64.

And Emmett Till could still be very much alive, had he not been lynched.

I’ll say it again, if you don’t like the demonym of “American,” feel free to refer to us by our state and territorial demonyms instead.

I think that there’s something to that, at least in the case of large universities which are divided into many, many organizational units. They also offer student jobs, which allow good opportunities for learning.

I started a job at a university department. A previous admin had a habit of re-purposing desktop machines as servers. There were at least a dozen of them. The authentication server for the whole department was on an old Dell desktop. All of the partitions were LVM volumes, and the volume group consisted of 3 physical volumes: The internal SATA drive, a bare SATA drive in an external USB cradle, and an external USB SSD.

This is why we drink.

Great, now I’ve forgotten my keys!

(I don’t need them until I get to work.)

On the original topic, shoes last a lot longer if you don’t wear the same pair day after day. The continual dampness from foot perspiration breaks down the materials much more quickly. Giving each pair of shoes a couple of days to dry out between wearings will greatly extend their lives.

This effect may not be visible to many people, but if you have a physical job, it can save you a lot of money.

100% chance that many people would interpret that as saying you can only get benefits for everybody together. The cannier folks would at least ask: “So can I apply for benefits for only my children, or only for all of us together?”

Better phrasing: “You can apply for benefits for any or all of the following people: You, your spouse, and your children.”

Source: Years of customer service experience.

I’ll add: Turning into the far lane of a multilane street. Phase/faze. Sight/site.

I see what you’re saying, and I can wholeheartedly agree that we should have been worrying about our rights for years. I’m not here trying to say that this latest ruling suddenly changes everything, but that it’s incrementally worse.

I guess I do have to defend those headlines a little bit. It’s not that we worry that the President is going to murder us, personally, but that it’s abominable that he could, and not be prosecuted. But, then, I was complaining about that when Obama had al Awlaki killed based on ersatz due process that he made up.

I make it a point not to tell people who they are or what they believe on Lemmy, actually. And yes, Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, et al. are certainly part of a protected class with special privileges. That doesn’t make them guilty of whatever their political opponents want to believe. These vague allegations of bank transfers are part of an investigation that’s been going on for years without turning up anything concrete, so claims that the Bidens have been protected from scrutiny don’t stand up.

Ah, I stand corrected on that point. The judge may see the evidence to determine whether an act was unofficial, but the evidence may not be introduced at trial to establish motive.

Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.

Not one politician was murdered, but funny story about January 6, 2021…

That’s a neat little Catch 22 there. You need a ruling that it wasn’t an official act to be able to introduce the evidence that it wasn’t an official act.

Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.

That’s not what anybody is worried about, but rather that this is the vanguard of a movement whose followers will happily kill us for any number of out-group reasons, take away bodily autonomy, labor rights, civil rights, and regulatory protections, and then, okay, yes, have the President sign our death warrants should we decide to protest all of this.

As one of the candidates has openly advocated and said he’d do.

You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties. Oh, and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.

Oh, and also by the way, if you somehow manage to convince a trial court judge that the act was outside of his official duties, he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.

I get the intent of such posts: To confuse and demoralize people with a “both sides” or “they’re all bad” message. I object because they discourage participation in the democratic process and serve authoritarian interests, and in the abstract, truth matters.

So… no.

That is indeed a series of events. Did they ever come up with any evidence linking them in a causal way?

Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened.

Bit of a refresher as it’s so hard to keep all of the lies straight: Republicans claimed that an FBI informant said that Hunter Biden took a position on the board of Burisma, and the Bidens took a bribe, in return for Joe pressuring Ukraine to fire the government official investigating Burisma. Nobody can produce the evidence, and said government official wasn’t investigating Burisma, after all.

Pres. Trump threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless Zelenskyy dug up kompromat on Trump’s political opponents. He was impeached over it. So that happened.