So since there are other consequences, nothing should be done?
I think sexually demeaning children is a really big issue, and pretty well-defined and wide spread. We may not need to ban things, but not doing anything is a cop-out.
In learning and intelligence, forgetting is often just as importance as remembering. This idea of remembering everything is just another piece of spaghetti tossed at the wall.
This is not surprising at all to the people who have looked at other cities that have implemented it. These were all expected outcomes, and I'm glad the expectations turned into reality.
One thing I'd like to add in is that to take public transit in NYC, you have to pay $2.90 a ride (with some exceptions). So for a commuter from the Bronx who works downtown, their daily fee is $5.80. A $9 a day fee to get into downtown with a car seems like a fair deal.
I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York. You have to find parking, you have to navigate traffic (pedestrian, car, and e-bike), and then you have to find gas stations. With public transportation, you don't need any of that. The only inconvenience is that sometimes where you're going is a bit of a walk. Car insurance is expensive, because cars cause a lot of damage and are easy to get damaged.
Literally not the definition of a dictatorship. Elections alone do not guarantee a government not run by a dictator. Not having elections during wartime doesn't mean a dictator is in charge. There is still a parliament.
Penny had multiple chances to get the Neely away from the situation, he didn't need to use a chokehold, he didn't need to step in. Trains stop fairly regularly, and people who regularly use the train who felt unsafe know they can always step out. Penny was a man out of his element and made every single wrong choice. He didn't make one mistake, he made many mistakes. Our society does suck that they don't do anything to help people like Neely (which helps every one) who have sever mental illness. Instead our society decides to help people who do what the worst people really want, just to eliminate anyone that causes us any discomfort. Penny decided to step into the situation, and when he did he took the responsibility of Neely's health as well. A strong courageous person would ensure that everyone, including Neely was safe. A coward takes the easy solution and kills the guy.
Daniel Penny acted like a coward in that situation. Anybody in that situation would be vigilant but not just go and kill a guy. If he was scared for himself, he could have left the train. If he was scared for the rest of the people in the train, he could have taken the guy out of the train at one of the 6 stops. He freaked out, acted out of control, and resulted in killing a human. Coward.
Yup, that's the general feeling among the colonists that were revolutionary.
Most of the colonists felt they were not being treated like British citizens, and they resented the inequity. Taxation was not the issue: it was the lack of political participation they could have.
Also, they did not see it as a violation of their "economic freedom," as that concept was not really around in the 1700s. They objected to the violation of the British constitution, which meant their rights as British subjects were violated. Taxes were fine by them, as long as they had a voice in Parliament, which they did not have.
No it didn't.
The Tea Act removed duties on the East India Company, removed the need to go to the London Tea Auction, and just required a deposit for the importer.
Do not use ChatGPT if you are beginning coding. It does not always produce valid or good code, and if you are not experienced, you may pick up on bad habits that some people's code in ChatGPT's training set has built.
I agree. You may get things done and learn some things from a solo project, but in industry software engineering is much more about maintaining and extending code you haven't written. You can't emulate that by yourself.
I can think of one reason, and it is that Boeing was accused of loosening hiring requirements because of their DEI policies. I do not believe this is the case for this ruling, and there is no evidence that Boeing changed hiring or training standards due to DEI policies.
According to the NPR article about this: "The judge also objected to a requirement that the monitor selection process adhere to the DOJ's diversity and inclusion policy."
So it seems as if the judge doesn't like something the DOJ routinely has, because the judge is saying the court should have a large part in deciding who the overseers are.
The judge brought up DEI. Neither of the parties seem to have, besides what seems to be a standing policy.
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/05/nx-s1-5217960/court-rejects-b...
I agree with you, it would be very odd (even as someone who is generally pro DEI) to include it in this provision.
He did present his view in the damages portion. And the court ruled that he did not comply with discovery. Then later in the damages portion of the trial, it was proven he lied. Like, on live camera.
They brought a case. They asked for discovery. The Jones team explicitly did not respond to discovery. The court sanctioned for a while, giving Jones more time. Eventually the case was brought to default. Because this is a civil case, that is very reasonable given the extraordinary lengths Jones's team went to avoid actually complying with court orders.
Then the damages hearing was held, where evidence was presented to show that defamation happened. The jury agreed.
The only real issue with this is that people don't like to read, and they would rather listen to Alex Jones's version of the story. This was a defamation case, which everyone has a right to, and Jones repeatedly spat in the face of the process (including destroying evidence).
It is hard to see how this case was handled poorly, and bad vibes alone aren't enough to say it was mishandled. This was a long process that Jones could have handled, but he gambled with his legal strategy and lost.
Again, what do you mean by "peers"? In the justice system, it just means a cross-section of the community that is as impartial as possible, as filtered out by the voir dire process. I don't think in any way these are his friends or family or colleagues or buddy-buddy with him. They were just what is typically called a jury of one's peers, as in fellow citizen. I do believe they were his fellow citizens that ruled on the judgement, yes.
Discovery isn't just giving over random documents. It's about giving over the documents that are requested by the other side. So giving more documents than they ask for is actually a hinderence. And the case was not about specific documents, it was the overall actions. Because of the "consistent pattern of discovery abuse" (quoting the decision), the parents could not see that evidence.
As for the larger point, in public opinion, most people see Jones getting what he deserves. He lied over and over again, caused harm to many families, and is now getting punished for it. He did this while knowing he was lying.
I'm also interested in what way during trial Bankston made himself look bad or anti-first amendment or against justice.
The court system worked very well in this case. A set of parents brought a civil lawsuit against a well-known man who was spreading what they thought were lies and inflicting emotional distress. Jones had plenty of time to respond, and he decided not to. Therefore, the case was decided in default, as is the way all civil cases would have been.
Then, a jury of his peers was brought in to decide on the size of the penalty. After hearing evidence, and giving Jones a chance to respond and question (which his lawyers absolutely failed to do effectively), the jury decided on a penalty.
This is a very simple case of a civil court system working as intended. Just because Jones lies to his audience and his audience is beholden to Jones's view of the world, does not mean the court system is malfunctioning.
Listen to Knowledge Fight, it's better than InfoWars.
"Just because I can build a car, don't expect me to build a seat belt or airbags."
It is perfectly reasonable and not at all asinine to ask to build features contingent on others.
They are moving one office, not the entirety of their downtown offices and South Lake Union campuses. The tax amazon movement has nothing to do with it.
It is important to expand thinking, but it isn't a good idea to just make up reasons either.