This is a roguelike for people who find Nethack too easy. Then you have the option of layering in challenges like blind, pacifist, and vegan. Go ahead, try playing through as a blind, vegan, pacifist Tourist. I dare ya.
This is a roguelike for people who find Nethack too easy. Then you have the option of layering in challenges like blind, pacifist, and vegan. Go ahead, try playing through as a blind, vegan, pacifist Tourist. I dare ya.
Meaning car companies will either need to start making vehicles people can afford or the public pressure for public transportation will massively increase. Win-win.
Not true.
He can’t prevent anyone that received the code under the GPL from using (and distributing it) under the old license. He also can’t relicense code that he received under the GPL only under the new license.
If he receives a new license from the other contributors to distribute under a more restrictive license, he can do that because he has a dual license to the code and is not relying on the GPL for his right to distribute.
At the last panel, I picture the teacher’s own teacher rolling over in their grave.
not being released until next year.
Yes, it’s legal in much of the US. Many states require a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry. WalMart has signs at the front of the store “requesting” people not to open carry, but apparently not prohibiting it.
Not a choice he had to make. The NFP parties agreed on a consensus candidate - Lucie Castets.
The opposite headline would have been more true. This ruling DOES disenfranchise those very same voters for state and local elections.
They won’t get to vote on little things like who draws the voting districts, who runs the elections, who certifies (or refuses to certify) the elections. Same for who decides on school book bans, policing priorities, medicaid expansion, or mask bans.
This may be a smaller loss than expected, but painting it as a win is disingenuous.
As a presidential candidate, she’s been perfectly clear that she does not intend to change that policy if elected.
Easy. You either set it up as a nonprofit (still not great in terms of incentives) or, better, as a consumers (or members) cooperative.
Alternatively, you don’t - you modify the incentives. Agency sets a one time, lifetime membership fee. Every failed match they set you up with refunds you a percentage of the balance.
Let’s assume it’s a $1000 membership, 5% refund.
First match works out? They keep the $1000 First match fails? You get $50 back. Second fails? You get another $47.50 (2% of the remaining $950) By match #45, you’ve been refunded 90% and they’re still holding less than $100.
This strongly incentivizes the agency to make the best possible match as quickly as possible. Users aren’t incentivized to join fraudulently because they’ll never get more out than they put in. The agency has no reason to create fake profiles, since a bad match costs them money.
This incentive structure is designed for long-term, monamorous relationships. It fails to account for poly relationships. People using it for short term hook-ups would settle over time into #2 below.
After a certain number of bad matches, it’s not worth it to the agency to put any effort into making a good match. Since they make the most money on early matches, their incentive is to connect the most “desirable” candidates with new members. People with more failed matches will most likely be connected to … other people with more failed matches.
Arguably, this is a feature not a bug. For new members, it means they don’t get spammed by long-time members that are hard to get along with or not actually looking for a long term relationship. For the ones that the early match algorithms didn’t work put for, it means they’ll at least get exposed to different groups of people over time - including others that failed to match for similar reasons as themselves.
This would not do wonders for their reputation and is probably not a good long term strategy for them - at least on the early matches. After a certain number of failures though, it might be an effective way to cut losses.
Pacifica then.
That is not accurate.
At the nation-state level with an ex-president target, pumping heated liquid through the arteries of a dead body isn’t much of an obstacle.
Probably not actually what they did, but seriously people - a single biometric security factor is not going to secure anything when a government has the body and actually cares about getting in.
No need to - “gay bashing” is unambiguous and hasn’t been used for decades to describe criticism of gay gangs that go around clubbing trans people to death.
Acknowledging that Zionists have robbed the word “antisemitic” of its meaning is the first step in reclaiming the word. The second step is to use other words to describe actual antisemitism so that people understand it still exists. The third is to refuse to allow Zionists to continue conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
You asked how to describe it, and I engaged with you in good faith to provide an answer. You responded with a second rhetorical device, and I engaged for the benefit of other readers. I won’t bother a third time.
[Edit: I removed the last paragraph after initially posting, being unsure I was responding to the same user in both cases. When I re-added it after confirming, I used slightly different language. Their quote of “rhetorical trick” below matches the original wording, and is a legitimate quote of my response]
A hate crime.
Because we don’t. The old name was “Sex Reassignment Surgery” (SRS), but the new names are “Gender Affirming Surgery” and “Gender Confirmation Surgery”.
So basically Biden with a less shitty stance on Palestine. I’ll take it!
The most encouraging thing in the whole talk for me was when he told a roomful of IT folks that they need to join or form Unions and they cheered.