I wouldn’t sign such a pledge personally eve if I feel the other candidates are fit. It should be my choice. Wes this normal for the RMC ion the past? Do the Democrats have the same policy?
It was never formalized in the past but has always been an unspoken rule: if you’re in the party, you support the party’s leader. Otherwise, why are you in the party?
In 2016, Trump caused a big stir because he stated he would not support the candidate if it wasn’t him. Some people think this was part of the reason he won, that some voters chose to support him because if he lost and ran as a third-party candidate, it would almost guarantee a victory for the Democrats.
Oh no! Whatever will I do if they raise their prices and crack down on sharing as I sit here with a VPN and a 50TB NAS…
Can’t say it wasn’t a good run and I actually enjoyed the era of streaming where content was easy to get to at a fair price but as is the circle of life, these companies will always inevitably become the greedy monsters they sought to replace.
I was once subscribed to four! I am now subscribed to one as the others kept fucking with me with these price raises and password sharing crackdowns.
I think more people just need to draw a line in the sand. These companies’ strategies are akin to slowly inching up the temperature of the water until you’re sitting in boiling water without realizing it.
It’s unfortunate that the average consumer seems to be about as aware as the lobster.
Yeah 96TB and usenet access is my streaming service these days. The system has paid for itself when I consider all the subscription fees we’ve avoided because of it.
It’s ridiculously simple, the only catch is the cost. But the increased download speeds more than makeup for it in my experience. Just do your research so you get a good client
these companies will always inevitably become the greedy monsters they sought to replace
Netflix is the only service I can think of that fits that bill. The truth is, virtually every other major streaming service popped up already being greedy corporation’s that just wanted a piece of the pie. Divide, conquer, and raise prices was always the plan.
“Following Sunday prayers, Sheikh Ron al Dee’santiz issued a fatwah against the Barbie Movie, decrying it as ‘against the law of Abraham’ and ‘promoting deviant Western concepts around women, homosexuality and the place of Yahweh in our lives.’”
I think it’s more about how those types of buyers view the manufacturers reliability long term. The man is unhinged and has proven with Twitter that if given the chance he will willingly fuck over users. Imagine giving a bully the ability to limit your driving range or disabling your vehicle on a whim because he decides he doesn’t like you or what your local govt says.
Not saying he would do it but he has proven repeatedly to be unstable enough to believe he could escape punishment for doing it.
Really emphasizes how vital “right to repair” is. If a Tesla didn’t have proprietary software and centralized control over its cars it wouldn’t matter how irrational Musk was. But Tesla owners have to trust Tesla to maintain both the hardware and software in their cars, which means buying a Tesla is a long-term commited relationship with that company. And same with Ford, GMC, every car company whose software is a black box - if you can’t repair your own vehicle, you have to trust the management of the car company won’t screw you over for fun and profit.
I read that someone had upgraded their P60 to a P90 by getting a new battery, all official and from Tesla and months later they updated his firmware and locked out the extra 30Kwh because it wasn’t the stock battery.
It’s shit like that that keeps me from owning anything Elon related.
At first, I thought that revoking her license on procedural grounds, rather than addressing the nonsense she was spewing, was a cowardly decision. After some thought, I realized that the board probably did the right thing. They are using this opportunity to reinforce the board’s authority, which is essential. They’re also giving themselves a second chance to revoke her license on professional grounds, in case she fights the procedural decision in court and somehow wins.
Also, I wonder how the Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom feel about a woman’s right to choose? I can only guess, but this “nonpartisan” group provides a handy election guide which endorses every Republican and absolutely no Democrats. That might be a clue. I bet they don’t even see the hypocrisy of using the words “Medical Freedom “, because they don’t acknowledge that abortion is health care.
Your 2000 year old cult that you say if full of love and forgiveness but has generally been used to stir hatred, abuse kids, and hoard incalculable amounts of money has been replaced with a new up-and-coming cult that skips the obligation to forgive and replaces it with hatred and retribution and even more grift. Congratulations.
I’m confused about what part is against her religion:
calling kids by their name?
not being a bigot?
not making everything about her?
Regardless, we know whose religious rights will be protected by the SCOTUS most high: the one who is imposing her ignorant worldview upon a captive audience. Funny how believing in magic gets you extra rights in this country.
She doesn’t have a religion unless you count hate as a religion. She claims to be Christian because they’re allowed to say and do whatever they want and can point to a book they’ve never read as a justification of their hate.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.