So… their gonna just level up their normal business model then? Churn out an endless stream of garbage in hopes something sticks then cancel it or ruin it when it somehow does stick?
Fellow newsian Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Trump indictment: Shush emojis and orders from the boss - charges in full” (Similairity: ~79%).
BING BONG this action was performed automatically by a bot approved by the mods (:
I remember when they first announced this tech & had totally forgotten about it. They should pull engineers from the web DRM scheme & the manifest v3 teams to look into this.
Oops… the fact that the Ukrainians are attacking defenses that have been built in-depth tells me that the Russians had a pretty good idea where the Ukrainians were going to attack - this does not bode well for Ukraine.
I think there are a few key paragraphs in this article that provide important context to the post title:
“Russia’s military has displayed “professional qualities” by preventing Ukrainian forces from “advancing quickly”.”
So they’re advancing, just not quickly enough for someone’s timeline?
“The Institute for the Study of War says Ukrainian forces appear to have broken through “certain pre-prepared Russian defensive positions”.”
So the Ukrainians are advancing, even through readied russian defenses.
“So far there’s little evidence that Western supplied tanks and armoured vehicles have been able to tip the balance decisively in Ukraine’s favour.”
So there’s no context for what they mean by decisively, But since we know that the Ukrainians are advancing because of these tanks and even breaking through pre-prepared Russian defenses, the armored vehicles are clearly tipping the battle in Ukraine’s favor.
A verdict of not guilty doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, it just means it couldn’t be proven to a high enough standard. It doesn’t mean he DID do it either, but if he did and his accusers ended up being punished for false accusation, that would send a chill down the spine of any person who has been assaulted and is thinking of pressing charges on their abuser.
Yep, going after accusers should be something that only happens in extreme cases, like the accused being able to prove they weren’t even in the same State at the time or in some other way being impossible for them to have committed the act.
Damn, I feel like his name’s been dragged through the mud these past few years. Not sure what the details of this whole thing are, but if the verdict is “Not Guilty” I guess that’s that.
Legal is not the same as moral or ethical. While he did not do things that were bad enough to lock him in a room over, we as a society are still allowed to socially punish him.
But what did he do? I’m not very tuned into everything that happened. Did he commit sexual assault or not? If they can’t charge him, I’d assume that means they can’t prove he did it right? OFC that doesn’t mean he actually didn’t, but I don’t see why anyone should “socially punish” him over something you don’t even know if he did or not, and something that he was found not guilty of.
I don’t mean for this sound like sexual assault apologia or something, I just really don’t understand the situation very well and trying to look this up online all I see is that he was accused and then found not guilty.
Agree about “legal being not the same as moral or ethical”, but calling for mob justice just isn’t something I would root for. The system isn’t perfect, of course, but one has to trust that people sitting in court have had access to more evidence than the randos of the internet, that, and the fact that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, absolutely. But the thing is that a lot of things are proven during trials that are immoral but not illegal. He could still have done a ton of indefensible stuff that makes him a bad person but still get a not guilty verdict. My point is that “Not being a criminal” is the lowest tier we should judge a person. If we are going to give a person a large amount of money and influence we are allowed to ask for more.
Yep, I get the sentiment, but it’s up to us to make amoral things illegal by means of democratic representation (assuming you live in a democratic country). It’s just slower, but that’s kind of the whole point of this :)
bbc.co.uk
Active