hitmyspot

I thought AI would save us money? If it adds 50% onto the cost of a salary and bynall studies does not improve productivity output, then it's not great.

I'm car free with 2 kids. Everyone thinks it's harder, like kids like driving in traffic. No, it's not. We do local things or get public transport. No parking hassles.fine to have a drink with lunch.

I don't think that works for them on the Trump era. He gets the blame. Unfortunately no consequences but the other Republicans may start to get some when the mid terms come around.

Most likely, they will. They are not elikely to infect larger instances. Smaller instances will spot them and ban them, I hope.

But they did this knowing that at this point there is not a viable alternative. It's both monopoly, vendor lock, eee and enshittification all at once..

That's kind of what they are already doing.

Totally not agent orange as it was cheaper, or by incompetence.

I think he's lost some funding due to obstructions. So if his plan was as a negotiation tactic, not as a means to help Putin, it's failed miserably.

Doesn't seem like his life is destroyed. It also seems like most people were unaware. I agree, in principle though. We should find that middle ground. The middle ground involves believing the victim and investigating.

The whole purpose of procedural fairness in trials os to protect the innocent against accusations. In sexual assault, it seems that the concept of procedural fairness is overriding it's purpose of protecting the accused.

Not that I'm aware of. In real life I know people who have been accused with no history also. It was proven true.

Not all accusations are true, but part of the lessons of #metoo was to believe the victims of sexual assault. Also, the abundance of literature on the subject. Sure, it could be a false accusation, so we shouldn't condemn him without investigation or trial bittnhats why there should be one.

Miatrials in the case of sexual assault just leaves an open question for both the accuser and accused. In some instances, a civil case is taken when the criminal case falls apart. Often the problem is it's just a he said, she said situation.

So, I believe her but also don't hold him accountable, if that makes sense. Absolutely, he should be held to account. That's my point. He hasn't been and there are questions about her not proceeding, that we don't know the answer to.

I'd never thought about the attorney working for free on the basis of the win. However, if she was a victim of a sexual assault, it could also be self sabotage as she psychologically is finding it hard to deal with or wants to avoid reliving it.

So, I'd still tend to believe her unless we have evidence otherwise or a jury of her peers says otherwise.

Cool, I can see it's a waste of time too if you're not able to appreciate other people's view or express yours beyond absolutisms. It's not a discussion when the only view you pay attention to is your own.