Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.
I worked with a rich ranch girl at a Restaurant once, she was 17 maybe just doing the summer serving with us, and I was playing music and taking requests and I asked her what she liked and she said "none of it I hate Music." I said "what do you do in the car?" she said "listen to talk radio or podcasts" and this just... Baffled me. She was not good at her job but after she told me that I couldn't help but feel a bit bad for her.
Get it's ass in gear? Apple has been actively fighting RtR and expandability in every way and only 'supported' the last RtR bill in Cali because they already had a circumvention in place using versioning. This is the exact same thing, PR gets to say they're carbon neutral while they pump the exact same amount of CO2 into the air each year. It's not just bad practice it's deceitful.
It wouldn't improve anything about the resolution or quality of the image you'd just get slightly more of the image. Seems like it would be useful in niche situations though.
The point is that the movie is extremely stupid and yet still we can find parallels between our world and this dumb movie. Our reality is fucking dumb. Nothing pseudo intellectual about it.
I don't feel like anybody would be rushing to defend him as being not at fault if he wasn't a movie star. When I took gun safety I was told that it was my responsibility to check the status of the firearm I was holding every single time. Nobody said "unless you're an actor on set and they hired an armorer then you're absolved of all responsibility." Like I'm not saying "send him to jail for the rest of his life" but I am saying that he was partly responsible for a woman's death and there should be consequences for that. The armorer was definitely the bigger fuckup though what a mess.
From what I understand they are saying that they will not be complying with the regulations and so the cost of the fees for failing to comply will be pushed onto the consumer with no environmental or fuel saving benefits.
That's somewhat true but christian colleges are often unwilling to look into scientific pursuits that may damage their faith's view on the sciences. They have made contributions, but are always limited in their scope and often publish inaccurate studies supporting their particular world view.
No memes at all are funny? I find that really hard to believe to be honest, and it sort of suggests that you have a flawed understanding of what a meme is outside of the 20's bastardization of it that means "funny picture with text." It also sounds like something an adolescent would say to distinguish themselves.
Because websites will check if you have a Web Integrity token being sent along by the browser and if it cannot find one registrations and login will be closed to your instance.
Edit: And to clarify, you will not get that token unless you verify your identity within the associated google account. Hence why only Chromium browsers will support this. But it isn't about the browser. It's about the token.
The 'average' website wouldn't but many of the social giants are desperately looking for a way to limit bot use. So Google gives them what they want and simultaneously gets to be the most reliable advertiser, ensuring impressions are viewed by not just a human but the right human.
Super common thing I'm seeing recently among cons, complete dismissal of any article not from the right sources. You see how this makes you much easier to manipulate right? Read everything.