That's tough buddy
The "SSH" picture would work for SSH tunneling
This seems entirely opposite to my observation. I'd say Biden and his administration are unusually focused on unfair or annoying business practices. In just the past two weeks the Biden administration:
- Set clear rules requiring cash refunds for flight delays
- Banned non-compete clauses
- Set new rules on "junk fees" for credit cards
- Increased the minimum salary for overtime exemption
- Expanded fiduciary duty to retirement "advisors"
- Announced a lawsuit against Live Nation (TicketMaster)
- Re-instated net neutrality
I oppose beef subsidies, but the unsubsidized price seems entirely fabricated. How can $38 billion across 80 billion pounds of meat and 25 billion gallons of milk make hamburger $25 cheaper per pound?
The complete rules are here: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/refundsfinalruleapril2024
The meat of it is the table on pages 9-14 and mostly comprehensible.
Worth noting:
- A change to your flight number is always a "cancellation" and you may choose to accept a refund
- The expectation is most people would not, for the same reason most don't cancel their refundable tickets - they want to go on the flight
- There are no carve outs for weather, etc.
- I am really glad to see this because airlines could claim "weather" for connecting flights, so any weather anywhere meant they could delay your flight
Funny running across this article after reading https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
Spoiler: the author does not have a high opinion of Raghavan.
🎵 Mister every ounce of beer is precious man 🎵
NHS to discontinue delivery of babies until double-blind study is done vs just leaving it in there.
What she said was "I think we can certainly do more to be advancing our vision, and I believe we have a strong vision that we can run on." She specifically calls out:
- Codifying abortion/reproductive rights [House and Senate races matter!]
- Lowering Medicare age
- Student loan forgiveness
Contrary to OP's title, she actually pushes back on the false narrative that Biden is running as "not Trump".
She does say that it will be important to demonstrate "what we are willing to do with" governing power between now and November.
Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).
Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.
It's a general rule of wine pairing that the wine should be sweeter than the food