Yup. Whoever is next, and hopefully that will be in January 2029 if not earlier, is not going to have anything like the same influence that previous presidents have had. They will be able to deescalate short-term issues and generally provide a lull in the storm, but Trump has exposed the fragility of US power, and his base proves that America is an unreliable partner, so getting anything significant done that might cross administrations is going to be so much harder. Even if the next president is not insane and is without any above-average level of evil (neither is guaranteed), then that only helps temporarily. Hell, even if there's some sea change in the electorate that makes democratic allies more optimistic, recovering from Trump 2 is going to mean the US looks inward for a time and there will be, if not a power vacuum, a serious low-pressure system that draws in disturbances.
Now, I'm not sad about the decline of American hegemony per se, but this is very much a "not like this" moment, and a slower unwinding would be better for stability. Our best case scenario here is that our allies understand the conflict inherent in the American ethos and work with us where practicable but also pursue the "strategic independence" we've been hearing about. I hope it's Europe that steps up and reasserts itself, because barring a very unlikely leveling of the international order, your other options are China bulldozing the world for the financial benefit of the party, or Putin throwing bodies (both at enemies and out of windows), cutting off fossil fuels, and threatening nuclear war every time he doesn't get his way.
Aerocart from Worx looks a little gimmicky, but might be closer to your needs.
If budget is no object, then maybe a Polymule at USD1000+.
Inbetween, there's something like a "Foldit Cart".
Try searches for folding wheelbarrow, folding garden cart, or folding "vermont" cart. Your options get better if you can live without it being collapsible.
For a while at least, attorneys at treasury were not allowed to use PACER because it charges nominal amounts per page to fund the Judicial branch. PACER is the one and only tool for researching and filing records in ongoing federal cases, which is to say, every single case that these lawyers would be working on.
It's kinda bullshit that there is a fee at all, but it is what it is and has been standard operating procedure for 20+ years, and they just flip a switch and wait for the howling to begin, because they have no idea what is important and don't care. This is just Xitter all over again, except now it's the government of the largest economy and military in the world.
The first term justices were all from the pre-existing Federalist Society list. It was full of overly partisan, reliable conservative activist judges, but they were generally people who'd arrived at their positions through arguments that, while arising from shitty first assumptions, one could cogently follow and even appreciate some of the mental gymnastics. They were either nominally qualified or on their way to being so. Alito (aka Great Value Scalia) has arguably been worse than the Trump Three; in retrospect I would have happily taken our chances with Harriet Miers.
I guarantee that Trump's list for this term is much, much worse. Frankly I would assume Aileen Cannon is at the top of it.
There was a time when Clarence's mindlessly textualist dissents were basically a drinking game for Law Students. Take a shot every time he mentions that something didn't exist in 1789! He was also famous for never, ever asking questions in oral arguments. Then of course there are the famous complaints about salary. Dude simply does not give a fuck, but that kind of committed disdain for the institution ended up serving him well as the GOP sank down to meet him.
I mean at this point, Trump’s preferred end state is basically China except stupid and unpredictable.
They see such an obvious opportunity for increasing their soft power that they’re saying things here that might actually slow down a move towards a world where taking Taiwan by force is acceptable.
I recently had a dream that involved a suburb of Green Bay, Wisconsin. I have never been to Green Bay Wisconsin. I know it as a rather small city that is the home to the Green Bay Packers, an administratively anachronistic NFL team that draws a large plurality of its fan base from the greater Milwaukee area. Off the top of my head, I don’t know if Green Bay has “suburbs” in the usual American sense at all.
I googled the name of this completely nonexistent community, along with the words “Green Bay,” and the AI very confidently hallucinated it into existence, describing it as a lovely shopping and residential area just over the bridge of the same name.
I had a "Philips" branded board for a couple of days. I have some pretty cheap tastes, but that's the only one I sent back simply because I hated it so much. I believe they're Aula boards, but a very, very cheap production run.
RK have had some battery issues, so that's unsurprising, and the software is clunky and bloated, but for wired use they should work reasonably well. Redragon potentially as well. I have an "E-Yooso"/Huo Ji that seems fine too. One of the issues some of us in the hobby run into with advice like this is that I haven't exclusively used one keyboard for more than a few weeks at a time before rotating it out for another, but like others here, I'm generally of the opinion that cheap is fine, but cheapest is sketchy.
Keychron, even their less expensive offerings, should get you to the point where you can reasonably hope for a certain amount of QC.
Everybody here is kinda right, but there are other factors to consider, and the net result is that it's usually not a case worth bringing.
The "Impossibility" defense says that in most cases, the "factual" impossibility of committing the crime is not a defense, but taking an action that is not a crime is a defense, and if raised must be proved by the prosecution. Even with "Factual," the line gets muddy (the article cites a person whose appeal won after they were convicted of poaching after shooting a stuffed deer). Many jurisdictions have a "reasonable person" standard for that as well, where if the act is the sort of thing that might normally be expected to result in a crime (the most infamous case is two US military personnel who thought they were raping a passed out woman, but really she had died from a heart attack) then you get no benefit, but if no reasonable person would believe that their action would do anything, then it's more likely to succeed. To answer one of your questions, being told the button sets off a bomb would be more problematic for our hypothetical asshole than being told it "just kills" somebody that would be a bigger problem than a Death Note notebook, but it's not a simple yes/no.
So anyway, this then raises some questions. Was this button setup convincing? Who did the convincing? Why did they do so? Other defenses might arise out of these conditions: e.g. they were told that pushing the button would save a bunch of other people, trolley-problem style, or it was the police egging them on and telling them they needed to for XYZ good reason. Many of them will turn on the defendant's thoughts, so in any jurisdiction where they are not obligated to testify (e.g. the United States), our very interesting defendant simply doesn't, and their attorney argues that there's reasonable doubt they thought the button would actually do anything.
Add on top of this prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor knows all of this, and knows this is a loser of a case, so apart from truly bonkers hypothetical, they will not bring it.
TL;DR: By the letter of the law, very probably yes, but no one will ever get convicted for it.
Yeah, if you were using one of these rubber dome M's, then the tactile event is firm and has quite the drop-off. I like it better than the average dome, but it's not fuckin' around.
I’m a little confused about what states in US are. Are they more like their own countries united in alliance, or are they districts of one country?
They're closer to districts, but with more constitutionally described rights. Definitely much more independent than French provinces, and even more than German states or UK constituent countries (devolution is at Parliament's discretion, for instance), but much, much less than EU countries.
I would just say that the key part to include is that the North knew slavery needed to die on the vine and was uninterested in helping the South preserve it, specifically by opposing the addition of new slave states, or at least abandoning the notion that the two should be intentionally kept in balance.
So nominally, yeah, few with any influence were proposing emancipation, and to be clear almost every white person in the country was super racist by modern standards, but slavery was doomed over the medium- to long-term. The South could see that the writing was on the wall, so they decided it was time to shoot their shot to preserve slavery, in a form particularly at odds with the world around it by the way, for as long as possible, and secession was the only viable path for them. No other issue of the day would have driven any significant region of the country to secede, though ironically if it had, no other issue would have given the opponents the moral high-ground like slavery did.
Jesus. Rose is dead and did 6 months at "Camp Fed" minimum security in 1990 for tax evasion related to horse-racing winnings, and memorabilia/autograph sales. There's somebody that needed a pardon. 😑
Meanwhile we're blowing up the entire Post-WW2 order, making the world much more dangerous, and destroying America's standing in the world in favor of powers that are (for now) much more autocratic.
I know they're "just" pets, but I can get that. You're their whole life, they don't really comprehend life and death the way people do, and if their simple, uncomplicated love (maybe) sets a ceiling on how much they give back to your wellbeing, it also sets a much higher floor.
That sucks so much. I'm sorry. I always say that as hard as it is, the only alternative to losing them is never having them, which is of course completely unacceptable. Grieve, heal, and when you can stand it, give another that same good life you gave your dumbbell.
Yup. Whoever is next, and hopefully that will be in January 2029 if not earlier, is not going to have anything like the same influence that previous presidents have had. They will be able to deescalate short-term issues and generally provide a lull in the storm, but Trump has exposed the fragility of US power, and his base proves that America is an unreliable partner, so getting anything significant done that might cross administrations is going to be so much harder. Even if the next president is not insane and is without any above-average level of evil (neither is guaranteed), then that only helps temporarily. Hell, even if there's some sea change in the electorate that makes democratic allies more optimistic, recovering from Trump 2 is going to mean the US looks inward for a time and there will be, if not a power vacuum, a serious low-pressure system that draws in disturbances.
Now, I'm not sad about the decline of American hegemony per se, but this is very much a "not like this" moment, and a slower unwinding would be better for stability. Our best case scenario here is that our allies understand the conflict inherent in the American ethos and work with us where practicable but also pursue the "strategic independence" we've been hearing about. I hope it's Europe that steps up and reasserts itself, because barring a very unlikely leveling of the international order, your other options are China bulldozing the world for the financial benefit of the party, or Putin throwing bodies (both at enemies and out of windows), cutting off fossil fuels, and threatening nuclear war every time he doesn't get his way.