Well, there is the Budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal, we’re supposed to help them in the case of a nuclear attack.
Well, there is the Budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
In exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal, we’re supposed to help them in the case of a nuclear attack.
Twain.
“He split Robin’s arrow in twain!”
Naw, they totally called it. Check out the Terminator 2 - 3D show that they used to have at Universal Studios (1996):
Edit (this video link is better): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfvD6UlKSWw&t=1005s
insane
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So, there are some misconceptions about this on both sides. While some may misunderstand how tax brackets work, there absolutely are certain income thresholds where barely going over a certain amount will net you less money overall.
Edit: To clarify, you should accept the raise. In most cases all you need to do to avoid “losing money” at any of these points is to lower your AGI by contributing to an IRA, 401K, etc.
For example (using 2025 numbers here for a single filer):
There are probably a few other taxes/credits I didn’t include, but this is just a quick example with what I could look up at the moment.
I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.
How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?
Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi?
How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.
I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)
A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller
And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick
I’m not very musically inclined, so I have no idea if this is B-flat minor or not, but what you described kind of sounds like “Jazz in Paris”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLJMTRvyj8
It’s one of the songs that you can select from Google Photos when making a highlight video.
Se calhar, seja melhor a postar isso na comunidade de [email protected]
Thanks! It doesn’t work through a regular web browser or with Voyager.
Looks like it does work with Eternity as well though.
Was that supposed to be a spoiler tag? What client does that work with?
Agreed, this is what the Forward Party is trying to do. They want to help people get elected at all levels that will support and help make changes so that we’re not stuck in some 2-party system.
Although, I think that approval voting or STAR voting is better than ranked-choice voting.
So, it is possible to incentivize clouds to rain with lasers. It’s part of “cloud seeding” tech that is already done today in Dubai.
But this just triggers rain on certain clouds, it’s not going to trigger a hurricane.
This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.
What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.
She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:
Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.
Stay calm - She thought that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.
Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.
You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
And replace it with what?
If we let capitalism run free without restrictions then we have major problems. As it is, most countries have found a balance between capitalism and setting restrictions on it.
When looking at economical systems, there aren’t many other options.
Previous attempts at communism have failed to the point that we either end up with dictatorships, or the country adopts a capitalist economy.
Economically, is there a system that would actually run better than what most countries today are using?
What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?
Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?
This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.
You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.
So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.
Misleading title, this was a Missouri State case, not a federal one.
That being said, there are way too many innocent people getting killed for crimes they did not commit.
The only purpose of the death penalty is revenge. It has no place in a modern society.
It really bothers me when journalists don’t list out which laws specifically were passed/signed.
Even better if they could link to the bill text itself, yet instead they just link to a similar article on their own site.
Nah, Cygnus beat you by about 14 min.
(On a serious note, had you already heard about someone else being convicted under the new security law? It also sounds like they’re talking about how the sentence was increased from 2 years to 7-10 years.)
Good thing Nancy can leave a bad review and walk down the street to the next Ice Cream shop where they don’t do this.