randomaccount43543 @ randomaccount43543 @lemmy.world

Posts

15

Comments

211

Joined

2 yr. ago

C-SPAN video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5123735/shots-fired-trump-rally

Imgur mirror: https://imgur.com/a/TqPqVVn

Video https://imgur.com/a/TqPqVVn

Vídeo https://imgur.com/a/TqPqVVn

Imgur mirror: https://imgur.com/a/TqPqVVn

Lots of other websites have already copied the "pay or consent" ad model

Another one bites the dust?

O

I've seen this mentioned a few times before but never get how it works. How do you even use TikTok as a search engine?

The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans

Bad bot

Wat

Tesla, Newton, Coulomb, Faraday

Then you are totally locked in with Apple devices and cannot switch to Android and take your passkeys with you

Typical 1-off error

Bout tree fiddy

Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:

It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws) that says that:

not (A and B and C)

is equal to

(not A) or (not B) or (not C)

—

In this case:

The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)

Which is the same as

The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)

—

Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that

not (A and B and C)

is equal to

(not A) and (not B) and (not C)

Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!

lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have (C)—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief

The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:

If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.

Once

😂 Love the balls poke