I went to her profile expecting her to be the usual brainbroken conservative, and instead she's like, complaining about a reply getting removed because it had the F slur in it, but she also replied to one of Elon's AI-generated videos about his Tesla robot saying "Get the fuck out of here with this clanker bullshit", so I respect it.
I could eat a party size bag of these things and still be craving more.
Good ass snack.
potentially possible
necessarily required
Took me a second to realize how it was meant to be interpreted.
The fact that we could plausibly interpret it as trump calling him correct about something in some way though is still immensely disappointing about our reality.
"Don't you see? Those people find civil rights offensive too! Why don't we just compromise and only call klan hoods "divisive" rather than "hateful." That will solve the issue!"
"I can explain, your honor... whoopsies! :3"
Anyone.
Absolutely anyone can submit a public comment on an agency’s proposed regulation. You do not have to be an academic, expert, or even someone who knows all of the ins and outs of the policy at hand. If you have something to say and think that your perspective could constructively add to the conversation, please comment.
Increase alertness
Decrease alertness
lmao
Who would have thought that denominating a rent control measure in a currency with a 211%+ inflation rate would actually not be feasible compared to rent control in a nation where the inflation rate is like 2%?
No wonder the landlords weren't renting as many units to people, because the rent control was being made financially infeasible by hyperinflation.
That's a better photo of it than their own marketing photos 😂
Glad you could confirm its identity!
So it's clear: This has a link where you can give public comment against the proposed new rules!!!
Go here, and either paste in what the EFF has pre-made for you, or ideally, write your own!
I oppose the USPTO’s proposed rule changes for inter partes review (IPR), Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025. The IPR process must remain open and fair. Patent challenges should be decided on their merits, not shut out because of legal activity elsewhere. These rules would make it nearly impossible for the public to challenge bad patents, and that will harm innovation and everyday technology users.
This dumbfuck doesn't understand that science can't fully rule anything out. That's why science continues to evolve, and things we once thought were true change over time as we get more evidence.
Science explains what we see in the world, it doesn't magically explain every possible outcome of every possible thing we look at.
No shit you can't "rule out the possibility", because you can't have an omnipotent view of every possible way every chemical reaction occurs ever between any infant and any vaccine.
What we can do, is look at how vaccines and autism rates are correlated, engage in numerous studies, and find out that there is no observable causal link between the two, or even a statistically significant correlation. That is the closest we can possibly get to "ruling it out."
You wanna know what there is an observable causal link for? Viruses killing people that would otherwise not have gotten sick from the virus had they gotten the vaccine.
Jfc we are so cooked as a nation.