School lunch debt is the so incredibly dystopian that I hope 20-30 years from now people will have to use an internet search to find out what it meant to people in this decade. Like it’s so unabashedly wrong as a thing, I hope we look at like when Bayer made heroin and bloodletting was in practice.
Most likely scenario is that they drive around in their trucks waving both flags of the US and flags of traitors to the US, block traffic, and post to Facebook.
Worst case scenario, there is a wave a of hate crimes as these hyped up fascists try to “defend America” by picking fights with any random brown person they see.
Best case scenario, they try messing with federal agents, get arrested, and wont be voting in November.
I assume this is in reaponse to the weight of 90 kilograms? 90 kilograms is about 200lbs rounded up so probably more than just meth heads and Olympic gymnasts.
The first scenario is basically what happened with the convoys in DC a while back. Every day, they’d drive down, drive around a while, and then leave. I live in the DC area, but don’t drive in DC often, but from what I heard, the impact was minimal.
I don’t know how many trucks were involved, but I do know those trucks are expensive to buy and maintain, too expensive to keep running them in non-revenue service like that for long.
If male tears were the only control, then they run the risk of not finding any result. If you have 3 groups, you need a substantially larger sample size because you are running a less powerful statistical test.
Easier to start with the test that’s most likely to work, and narrow it down from there if you succeed
Just college lab courses, but come on, it’s pretty basic. The experiment merely tests a single variable by changing it while keeping everything else the same. There could have been dozens of different samples that men sniffed and it wouldn’t really make the data complicated.
It would increase the length of the test, though, so dozens of samples would have been cumbersome. But just two? Literally just “see how the test group responds to sample 1, sample 2, and the control sample”? That’s not complicated science. You probably did that in highschool lol
I’m guessing they had to stay within their funding/budget and didn’t want to reduce the sample size to increase the number of variables tested. MRIs are expensive
they should just be getting time on the machine although maybe also tech time. either way doing multiple with a single individual is easier than more individuals.
But that makes it more complex because you have to start worrying about the order they’re done in because it might be different emotions playing your first or third game plus the effect might linger, take time to show, etc.
Far better to answer one simple question and prove there is an effect then follow up tests can look at finding the bounds to that and starting to narrow in on identifying mechanics.
Testing multiple hypotheses this way still requires additional sample size because there is an increased error likelihood. From a statistical point of view, the most efficient test may be to stick to one variable like this.
I have experience and yes, it would not make it much more complicated. two types of controls are actually common although using male tears would not be a control. but like 5 research targets and 2 controls would not be beyond belief.
** I think people are waaaay more complicated than 3 arbitrary buckets. It’s the same reason Meyer’s Briggs is bullshit. Anyone who tries to pigeonhole people into all-encompasing categories does not really understand people
Seems there was a study that concluded female tears raise testosterone of men. I thus think it's kinda understandable they did it in this way. But, yeah, not really convincing.
I thought the same thing, so I checked the real paper and they do end up explaining their reasoning.
As for social interactions among humans, future research will explore whether the new study’s findings apply to women. “When we looked for volunteers who could donate tears, we found mostly women, because for them it’s much more socially acceptable to cry,” Agron says.
I’m interested if the results are same for male tears and also if they’re the same for women who smell either gender’s tears.
Man whenever I bring up these kind of things to my parents, it’s always like, “well there’ll surely be an exception for it”. The reality is there’s never an exception for it. The exception has to be fought for at the expense of the victim
Just look at the “life of the mother exceptions.” There was a recent case where the fetus was all but dead and the woman’s life was in danger. She actually wanted the child, but carrying it to term and delivering it could have killed her.
Seems like an ideal life of the mother situation, right? Except the doctors said she wasn’t close enough to death. So she sued in court to get the law overturned. She won the right to have an abortion, but then the AG threatened the hospitals/doctors. Then the Texas Supreme Court ruled that she was at risk of dying, but she wasn’t CLOSE ENOUGH to death to qualify. So basically she had to be actively dying to get an abortion and even then it might not be good enough.
All the exceptions are fake. How long does a rape conviction take to secure, assuming the perp is actually found guilty at all? Longer than a few weeks, that’s for sure!
And that’s assuming that the rape is reported. Many rapes go unreported for various reasons. And requirements that the woman has to report the rape before she might be allowed to have an abortion are meant to force women into public shaming/threatening situations. (“How dare she accuse POPULAR COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER of raping her! Look at what she was wearing. She was asking for it! Why was she drinking at all? The second a woman takes a drink of alcohol, she consents to have sex.”)
Liquid assets go straight towards liabilities, real assets TEND to stay untouched, some physical assets are sold off, some aren't, then after that little dance, the remainder of liabilities are discharged.
So yes. When you walk out of a bankruptcy, in general, your quality of life has changed very little, you are just starting over in terms of LIQUID assets.
However it was designed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be abused by rich fucks not giving up their millionaire lifestyle while continuing to rack up additional debt/judgements. You know these assholes are proponents of limiting what people can use welfare for (no steak or other “luxury” food styled arguments). Perhaps he should be limited to what a person on welfare is able to afford? You want to continue to pull in an income for “speeches” or whatever bullshit these grifters do for money? All but the bare minimum get frozen by the court until judgements are settled.
Exactly. You shouldn’t come out of bankruptcy homeless, but you should absolutely be stripped of all but your smallest house and all trusts in your name.
You understand that you could sentence Guliani, the world famous Mayor of New York during 9/11 to walk naked into the Antarctic tundra and he will be scooped up and pampered even harder for it.
By Maga. By Russia. By the fascist cops who justify their blue line culture by the legitimacy of post 9/11 "support the troops, thank the first responders" horse shit we showered them with for 20 years.
He should be in a cell.
Put them in cells.
However luxurious they can make that cell (less wifi), the only thing we can do with these fascists is to confine them to a cell and an orange jumpsuit.
I think you are falling into the social media trap that every comment has to be a back and forth, or a disagreement. When you describe the existing system, if someone disagrees with it, it’s not a disagreement with you. When you let that go and realize you don’t need to reply, it’s a weight lifted.
You’ll have to specify you don’t support it when describing it in a way that can be confused as a defense for it if you really want to avoid it. Saying, “nah it doesn’t work like that.” is very, very easy to take as an adversarial statement.
It doesn’t imply defense, but it can come across as a defensive posture. Poe’s Law kinda’ sucks to deal with. It’s one of many reasons good speech writers are kept around. It’s not just about having correct English or making logically correct statements.
They were being neither parodic nor sarcastic so Poe’s law really doesn’t apply.
I also disagree that they have to specify they don’t support it. The comment is a statement of fact, a readers assumptions about the stance of the writer speaks to the readers bias, not the writers.
Yes, notice how I said, “…if you want to avoid it.”
It wasn’t an appeal for making correct statements. It was an appeal to hedge communication, which is always intelligent to do with a general audience. Most people do not think like a computer. You HAVE to communicate with that in mind to effectively communicate.
Yes, it’s a problem with stupid people, but if you want stupid people to understand you, you better get used to it.
This isn’t true. In fact, I told my wife that I’d come back and haunt her if she paid a penny towards my student loans if I died.
But it doesn’t matter any more, I was able to get my student loan debt finally discharged earlier this year. All it took was sending $450 to my loan carrier every month for 20 years, and then they told me I didn’t need to send any more. Thanks Biden!
"Inheriting debt" as far as I am aware has never been legally validated.
At least in America, the courts are silent about it.
Like, your paychecks can't be garnished in the name of inherited debt, but the courts also wont stop debt collectors from going after a person for inherited debt.
If the surviving family buckles under the harassment and pays, they buckle and pay. If they hold strong and wait for the collectors to move on, they don't pay.
This isn’t in the case of something “unwanted”. You can decline to assume a debt from inheritance. You would also be giving up anything tied to it like a house or car. In the case of a dead loved one’s higher education, there’s no reason to assume the debt. You don’t get the education if you do.
I mean, it makes sense (to me at least) that spouses would inherit debt "that was their spouses", with the possible exception of established prenuptial/last will and testament agreements creating a grey area in favor of the surviving spouse.
By default, a marriage is a merging of finances and households.
Without things like prenups and wills, a divorce is going to be a process of splitting all liabilities and assets 50/50. Similarly, without prenups and wills, the surviving spouse is going to inherit all of assets AND all liabilities (because technically they always held them in tandem with their spouse).
Now, if there was always a prenup, Hubby always had the money, Wifey was on a weekly/monthly allowance, and Hubby had a will where he left all the money to his son from another woman, leaving Wifey with nothing, Wifey didn't get any assets, obviously she doesn't inherit any debt.
Outside marriage, I think it should go like this:
Upon death, non-liquid assets get distributed. Timmy inherits the Pontiac GT, Harriet inherits all of the clothes, Wilfred gets all the furniture, Freddy gets the house. Any SECURED liability on the non-liquid assets stay attached. Dad had 3k left on the car loan for the Pontiac, Timmy can take over that car loan. If Freddy doesn't want Dad's house worth 300k dollars with 200k left on the mortgage, he has the option to liquidate the house, but the proceeds from that sale go into the liquid assets of the estate, not into Freddy's pocket.
After non-liquid assets have been distributed/liquidated and BEFORE any liquid assets get distributed as inheritance, liability holders for the estate get to fight over what ever liquid assets are there. If the estate, after liquidation, has 400k in liquid assets, secured liability holders (the mortgage company) are going to get first stab at the money. The mortgage company recovers its 300k. Then any unsecured liability holders (Dad's credit card he ran up to 60k dollars) get next stab at the liquid assets. They recover their 60k, that leaves 40k in liquid assets.
If the liability of the estate exceeds the liquid assets of the estate, no dollars are going to anyone in the family. Liability holders get all the money, and some of them probably get stiffed on the remainder.
In no event does unsecured liability get shuffled off on a successor of the deceased.
If there are no liquid assets left after liability has been resolved, Frankie doesn't get the 10k Dad's will said was bequeathed to him.
No idea how all of this actually plays out. Just my opinion on what should happen with an estate after death.
You can only become a dictator one time, after that you are a dictator.
So he’ll only “become” a dictator on day one, the rest of his life hell just be a dictator.
And let’s not entertain the fantasy that his heath will catch up to him sooner rather than later, remember he has access to better healthcare than 99% of the population and it’s entirely state funded.
We’ll be stuck with him for at least a decade, but I wonder who will inherit the throne when he’s gone?
Paying damages out of police retirement founds would be a simple, one step, foolproof solution to this problem. You don’t want lower retirement? Stop breaking the law. Oh, you’re one of the 5 good cops in the country and this would hurt you even though you did nothing wrong? Actually report the bad cops instead just watching. Thanks.
It’s fine when used properly. When acting in good faith, officers, just like any company employee, should generally not be held liable.
However, if they are not acting in good faith, or their actions deviate from good practice, then much like a chemical company employee dumping something toxic out into the environment, then yes they should face personal civil and criminal liability.
For example, if there’s an active shooter, and the police shoot and kill him, I think most people would agree that that’s acceptable, and the family of the shooter should not have grounds to sue over the shooter’s death.
If the police walk up and shoot your dog for no reason, that’s unacceptable and they should absolutely face personal liability.
Per the article:
“After reviewing all of the evidence in this matter a determination was made that actions of the officers didn’t generate criminal liability because they were acting in good faith,” the office said in a statement to The Post.
I hope the court disagrees, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
The federal government already did it with the teamsters. Social security exists to bailout seniors from poverty. There is no way that the government is just going to allow large amounts of people to just get fucked on retirement.
Ok, so I’m thinking that theyo pay out some money in damages and the retirement found looses 10% of assets. The projected retirements for cops that are still working gets lowered. The cops closest to retirement lose less, for example 5%, younger cops loose more, for example 15%.
You’re saying that in this situation those younger cops will just keep doing what they’re doing hoping that they will lose all the money and get bailed out? I’m thinking they will start complaining about the aggressive cops that cost THEM actually money. It’s not about taking away all their retirement. It’s about slowly lowering it down so that they start paying attention. I think it would work. But of course it will never happen. We’re just playing fantasy politics here.
Also: police should have to have insurance to carry firearms. If they’re bad cops, that insurance cost should eventually exceed their pay.
Speed when you don’t have to? That hurts your insurance. Found conducting illegal terry stop? Hurts insurance. Unnecessary discharge? Lol, your insurance just got expensive as fuck for the next 5 years. How bad do you wanna serve and protect? Minimum wage sound good?
Except this is America. It’s pretty much impossible to prove that the discharge was unnecessary, same as it’s impossible to prove that cop killed someone unnecessarily. That’s why people demand damages from the city, not the cop himself. You can argue that the police force was run incorrectly and demand money from the people that run it but the cop is always innocent. I know this is BS but this is how it works. That’s why money should come from the retirement found. If the entire organization is responsible the entire organization should pay.
People sue the city and not the cop because laws protect the cop and prevent them from facing the civil consequences directly.
Yes, the laws protect them from civic consequences but not criminal. If you would prove that the cop murdered someone he would go to jail, not just paid damages. But as I said it super difficult to prove that cop murdered someone because all the cop has to say is that he was afraid for his life and he’s all good. He has the right to shoot the moment he thinks his life is in danger. To convict a cop you have to prove that he wasn’t thinking that. How do you do it? He would have to directly say “BTW I know I’m not in any real danger” as he shoots the victim. There were many many cases where a cop shot someone running away, laying on the ground or even sleeping and was found innocent. All his lawyer has to say is that the cop thought that the victim was reaching for a gun. There was no gun at all? Doesn’t matter, the cop thought that there was one.
And than there’s the expert witness testimony thing where “experts” are paid by police union lawyers to testify, that the cop was actually in danger. Ever heard about the “fact” that a person with a knife is dangerous when he’s closer than 7 meters (21 feet rule)? It was invented by one of those experts. It’s total BS but it helps save cops from jail. They will testify that “yes, the victim was running away and had no gun but according to our studies the cop was justified in thinking, he was in danger”. And that’s it, he’s free to go. Many many cases like that.
It doesn’t matter if they quit or not. It’s the police department that pays damages, no matter if the cops still work there or not (this is how it works now). Once the retirement found looses some $ and the retirements gets lowered cops will be very quick to report bad apples before they actually kill someone (as they should be doing now).
I don’t think I’m optimistic at all. Police departments already pay out damages. It’s not some wishful thinking. Police already lie, plant evidence, threaten witnesses and make deals with criminals. And they still do lose civil cases and pay. Of course it only happens in the most extreme cases but it does actually happen. If each such case meant they lose money they would try not to have such cases. How? By getting rid of the most aggressive officers. It would not fix all the issues but it would help.
When a psycho cop in the department shoots an innocent kid in the back, the other cops will have to decide either to plant a gun on him or have their their retirement funds drained by a lawsuit.
The police are funded by taxpayers, so it doesn’t matter if it’s the city or the police that pay for it, you still foot the bill no matter what. The only solution where citizens don’t lose is if cops are required to carry personal malpractice insurance, like doctors. IMO making cops personally liable for their murders is a good place to start.
it does matter though because if the money for paying for damages illegally caused by police comes out of their budget they’ll at least feel that until the next year’s budget kicks in. As-is, police are completely removed from any responsibility for their actions.
FWIW, these judgements are typically paid by the city’s insurance, although that’s also funded by the taxpayers. I don’t know how department policies and the like affect the premiums, but I would really be interested in learning.
I feel like it’d be worse to have taxpayers care even less about what police are doing. That said, it’s mind-blowing taxpayers don’t seem to care as it is
Now that everyone who experienced WW2 has gone, the collective memory isn’t so strong. Up till a few years ago, you could talk to someone in the family who remembered it.
Our population is too domesticated for all this nonsense. I would argue the vast majority of people haven’t even killed a chicken, let alone taken human life. No murders will be happening any time soon
This is a bad take, you don’t have to have previously killed anyone to become a murderer.
The Nazis managed to industrialize mass murder in the 20th century which directly reduced the amount of exposure to the common citizen. I don’t even want to imagine what a similar mindset would be capable of today.
All it takes is a minority of psychopaths and a large population of apathetic citizens.
Weird how when it comes to helping the working class, taxing the rich is never an option. But when it comes to helping the ruling class, you can tax the working class and print money.
You don't give money to the bums
on a corner with a sign bleeding from their gums
Talking about you don't support a crackhead
What you think happens to the money from your taxes
Shit the governments an addict
With a billion dollar a week kill brown people habit
Didn’t it just come from taxes. I know they claim there’s never any money but there’s always money, they just don’t to use any of it.
They’re always claiming they need to raise taxes but they don’t, they just need to spend them. Also possibly maybe they shouldn’t give contracts to their chums as backhanders. Maybe then they get better deals.
Every dollar they can save by not spending on making US citizens lives better can be used to buy another missile or drone. The Ukrainian and Israeli armies have benefitted more from our tax dollars than US citizens have in recent times, it seems.
I’m all for weakening our second biggest potential enemy, who got into their current situation through an act of baseless aggression, by spending tax money supplying high tech weaponry to an ally willing to spend it’s populations lives in defense of their country and ideals. That is a win-win.
I’m not so much ok with spending tax dollars to support a genocide.
No, Treasury directed the fed to issue bonds and run those loans through banks and businesses. When Congress spends money, it spends it into existence- it doesn’t have a pool of dollars that people have sent in somewhere. For that matter, when you pay your taxes, the money is used to zero out the bonds (again, in the Fed’s ledger) used to issue it. Remember, money in circulation is (from the POV of the fed) a liability on its books.
What a waste. Regardless of his political affiliations, it’s sad that someone got bullied so hard that they decided to take their own life. It’s what we fight for in the LGBTQ community and beyond- so nobody feels that their life is over if discovered. Nor should it be a big deal, regardless. It’s what we’ve been fighting for since the Lavender Scare, and we’ll keep fighting for a general sense of normalcy for everyday Americans, regardless of political orientation.
I just imagine him being so conflicted about what he wanted for himself and what he thought reality would allow that killing himself made more sense then living ostracized. He must of truly believed the goodness of people is limited to what the majority find socially acceptable.
only three years for violently attacking a police officer while also committing an act of insurrection inside the nations capital, what the fucking motherfucking fuck is this bullshit
I don’t understand the monitoring and observing thing. Is the employee doing their work effectively and within the allotted timeframe? If so great, if not have a chat with them. Where’s the problem?
Y’all need to quit… I’ve literally never treated my people like this. Spent 20 years as an engineer myself, tho. As a Director, I still commit code like a principal.
Because they have nothing to fall back on and they are not in control of the situation but are responsible for the situation. Corporate eunchs, responsibility without power. The project is a disaster and everyone knows it, there will be a fallguy when it burns to the ground. So they melt down. Try to control the one thing they can.
I get it, because I have seen my project managers over the years in the same position. Of course they start screaming about coffee breaks, they are looking at unemployment. It’s a shitty situation.
And I can guarantee that they have no fucking clue if their workers are slacking off in the office as well. They seriously believe them being in the vicinitee actually encourages worker to work harder. What a bunch of clueless muppets.
I do about half and half remote, and i do work differently in office than when at home.
In office, i handle physical elements of the job, and also end up being interrupted far more often by user requests.
When I’m at home, I’m able to get into a groove programming, and am still about 90% as effective remotely handling user requests.
For me the mix is good, and when it comes to long term goals, my home time is far more productive.
Today for example the system I’m working on was scheduled for in office, but I decided to work from home. Turns out, facilities removed all the furniture from the room so I’d have been sitting on the floor or working on it remotely anyway.
Our entire group is remote, and my boss has a fantastic way of structuring things. We have a weekly team meeting where we discuss our ongoing projects, and at the end of each week, he wants a short summary email of the work we did this week and the work we have planned next week.
That email is a godsend on Mondays to get myself back into the swing of things and remember what I was doing.
Bad strategy. Even if he got off with a $2 fine, he’d call it an “injustice”. He’s gonna go off the rails no matter what, so might as well nail him to the wall.
He’s interfering with an election, and it's a disgrace.
This statement is so dementedly ironic that I think it may have damaged the time-space continuum.
This statement is so dementedly ironic that I think it may have damaged the time-space continuum.
Why do people continue to be surprised or appalled at whatever Trump has to say? We already know his game. Tomorrow he’ll say that Biden personally slapped him at the oval office while declaring that he got away with stealing the election. He of course slapped him back. It was the best slap.
You may as well sit down and listen to the rants of the neighborhood crazy homeless person in the 7-eleven corner.
By the time I get to the end of an article about him, nothing he says or does surprises me. Then I’m sick of hearing about him for a while, and avoid stories about him. In the meantime, I get used to normal people again and partially “reset”. Then I’ll come across another article that’s really more of the same, but it seems a bit different. Wash, rinse, repeat.
It’s unsatisfying and irrational, but it’s also the best explanation I have.
As soon as I see “Donald Trump said…” somewhere, or if I hear his voice in the news, I mentally check out and replace my capacity to process language with sounds of a tuba playing the Macarena.
The one good thing about this trial is that America is realizing how chronically inadequate its laws are for expecting people in political office (or campaigning for) to behave within the law. Everyone is human and bound to abuse and the law should set clear boundaries to prevent that abuse.
Just end the sentance with poor. It doesn’t matter if you are white, if you end up in the system and have no money you will be fucked.
It’s part of the reason republican voters are such morons, they think the system will just hurt the “right people”, when in actuality it fucks every non rich person.
From healthcare to education to prison, you will be fucked if you are poor.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.