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.
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.
Page tracking all of the polls in the battleground states:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
Edit: List specifying which state for each poll: https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/state/general-election
Mythbusters did an episode on this.
2 poppyseed bagels were enough to have them test positive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MythBusters_pilot_episodes#Episode_P3_–_"Poppy-Seed_Drug_Test"
They remained positive for at least 8 more hours and by the next morning they had tested negative again.
Same as it ever was.
I doubt this was the case during (and for at least a time after) WWII. But maybe a history buff can correct me. I haven’t looked too deeply into how the justice system handled Nazis that far back.
When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o
Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!
Then if they go this route, they better make sure that they clearly define what they mean by a “Recommendation Algorithm” or an “interests-based algorithm” because the opinions of individuals won’t hold up in court.
If it’s not defined an attorney could easily argue that Lemmy’s “Scaled” algorithm is a “recommendation algorithm” and you would hope that the judge understood enough about programming to know where to draw the line.
Spiritual.
Hero who appears in you to clear your view when you’re too crazy.
Add fuses to that list:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B90_SNNbcoU
Better than using a bunch of dynamite on a whale carcass… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34
What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?
At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.
[Meyer] also expressed frustration that Cody is the only official expected to face criminal prosecution.
“What I feel is going on here is that he’s been set up as the fall guy,” Meyer said.
From NPR news: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/g-s1-15539/kansas-police-chief-newspaper-raid
More details from the Institute for Justice which picked up this case, free of charge:
Found the whole thing that includes when they are walking out on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgod-nqFEEc
Edit: There was a bit of hot mic somewhere nearby so you could hear a little bit before he sat down:
RS: “Hi Mister Trump, just take a seat over there, thank you.”
DT: “Uh, how are you? How are you?”
RS: “Good”
Music dies and mic turns on:
RS: “Mr President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think that it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying…”
I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.
Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?
I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.
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 though 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.
Not a surprise considering Governor Hochul sabotaged the bill just before signing it:
https://odysee.com/governor-hochul-sabotages-ny-right-to
Most of those videos are also found on YouTube. I would expect that you don’t see those videos suggested to you because the algorithm has learned what you like to watch.
If you open up YouTube with a VPN and in a private tab you’ll likely get search results that include a mix from both the right and the left.
I’d rather not link to them, but from the ones you circled, these are the videos that I found on YouTube while doing a quick search:
Now please excuse me as I purge my history…
The link from my quote includes a breakdown of the different types of bars and how much was found in each, so I would compare the kind of chocolate you usually eat, the safest choices were:
Edit 2: Note this particular study was done on dark chocolate bars. Milk chocolate bars would be more diluted.
Even those contained small levels of both, so eating an entire bar all at once is probably not a good idea.
Also there are other foods that can have it:
It can be found in many other foods—such as sweet potatoes, spinach, and carrots—and small amounts from multiple sources can add up to dangerous levels. That’s why it’s important to limit exposure when you can.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
Edit: comma after ‘eat’
This article didn’t go into it, but here’s a little background info from how some of these heavy metals end up in chocolate (at least):
The researchers found that cacao plants take up cadmium from the soil, with the metal accumulating in cacao beans as the tree grows. That’s similar to how heavy metals contaminate some other foods.
But lead seems to get into cacao after beans are harvested. The researchers found that the metal was typically on the outer shell of the cocoa bean, not in the bean itself. Moreover, lead levels were low soon after beans were picked and removed from pods but increased as beans dried in the sun for days. During that time, lead-filled dust and dirt accumulated on the beans. “We collected beans on the ground that were heavily loaded with lead on the outer shell,” DiBartolomeis says.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/
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.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/