(from the point of the vote counters) They know because there are individualized bar codes on every envelope. They will just count every ballot that arrives intact. If they scan one and it's from a voter who has already been counted, they'll have to figure out if that's voting fraud or a legitimate consequence of an act of arson/other problem--and it's almost never voting fraud.
(from the point of view of the voter) assume your ballot was destroyed, get another one, vote again.
Is it? If ChatGPT wrote your paper, why would citations of the work of Frankie Hawkes raise any red flags unless you happened to see this specific tweet? You'd just see ChatGPT filled in some research by someone you hadn't heard of. Whatever, turn it in. Proofreading anything you turn in is obviously a good idea, but it's not going to reveal that you fell into a trap here.
If you went so far as to learn who Frankie Hawkes is supposed to be, you'd probably find out he's irrelevant to this course of study and doesn't have any citeable works on the subject. But then, if you were doing that work, you aren't using ChatGPT in the first place. And that goes well beyond "proofreading".
The missing words are "shitty" and "fucking", btw. I feel like we're getting crap posts like this from bots that aren't willing to tailor their posts for places where naughty words are allowed. Or reposts of bots' output. Either way, I'm tired of it.
Oh look, the fucking devil has something to say. Tell us, Mitch, was this a realization that suddenly came upon you or was it absolutely crystal clear to you already when you were confirming his fucking nominees for the SC? When you refused to vote for his impeachment conviction, twice? I'd put you up on the wall right next to him.
When someone says "He's an unbelievable genius," I now understand that the person speaking is either a con artist or a gullible idiot. Unbelievable geniuses don't exist, there's just specialists, people who get lucky, people who work hard. So if you're saying someone is such a genius, either you have no metric by which to measure genius, or you're selling something.
“I think Cullen made the Satoshi accusation for marketing. He needed a way to get attention for his film.”
Cullen is absolutely selling something: he's selling his documentary.
The various denials and deflections from Todd, [Cullen] claims, are part of a grand and layered misdirection.
Smells 100% like bullshit. I had no take on this documentary one way or the other before, but now I'm very skeptical.
I have a very cynical reason. If you look at what most religions say about it (against), you have to wonder why they all agree on it and it seems to me that if you off yourself, you're not supporting the team. When there weren't many humans, you really needed a bunch of team players on your religion making more babies, and the dead ones can't carry out your crusades.
Now we put capital above religion, but it's the same thing: we need workers for our factories. We need babies to become workers for our factories. Dead people can't make cars or babies.
Yeah, I don't see any other option. I'm just saying it ain't good.