Highly trafficked? Sounds like this site is getting a paid trip to Epstein island.

Definitely got Fetterman vibes from Moulton.

That being said, I’m disappointed that Jerome Whalen lost, even though I don’t have any particular ill will towards Richard Neal.

Lol. “We couldn’t possibly do the bare minimum and disclose that we’re collecting a shit ton of data about you, so we’d rather just block you”.

Those people are brainwashed and we expect them to have double standards. There IS some discussion to be had in this case amongst reasonable people.

When I first read about this, it was presented as:

Trans person existing outside bar Shoved to the ground Draws weapon, does not fire Trans person faces charges

The above situation definitely sounds like a “stand your ground” type of situation, and I thought it was ridiculous that she was charged.

Inserting “crossed the street to confront the person yelling slurs” (while admirable) could be understood by reasonable people to fall under “initiated the confrontation”.

I use the word confront, because that’s what I would be crossing the street to do. I don’t think I would be “trying to understand the situation”.

It’s interesting that you mentioned Rittenhouse because part of what makes him guilty in my mind is that he clearly went out if his way looking for trouble. This is my big issue with “stand your ground” vs “castle doctrine” in general. Did this person go out of their way looking for trouble? That’s what the judge has to decide.

I think she should be able to press charges for assault though, the guy shoved her to the ground, why shouldn’t he be charged too? He’s definitely not innocent in this situation especially since everyone agrees he started the while confrontation by yelling slurs.

Another thing that’s interesting about this to me is that IF the charges are thrown out under “stand your ground”, are we saying that she WOULD have been justified using deadly force here? I think if she had actually shot the guy we’d be having a different discussion.

How much paid vacation did he get?

A big part of the problem here is this licensed fruit.

It seems like the guy agreed to grow this fruit that needed to be exclusively licensed or you wouldn’t be allowed to grow it.

He also agreed that the company he licensed the fruit from had exclusive rights to buy and market the fruit.

The company with exclusive rights apparently wasn’t paying for all the fruit that was grown. Unclear why.

The jury ruled that the farmer broke the contract, but there’s so much fucked up about the contract to begin with.

If the company didn’t want the fruit, the farmer should be able to sell it or give it away. They decided NOT to exercise their exclusive rights.

And now the trees will be destroyed because they are unlicensed… What a dumb system.

The Garmin vivoactive 5 is the one I was considering since it seems relatively affordable and apparently once the card is on the watch through the Garmin Pay app then it works without the phone being connected.

The reason I’ll never pay Google a subscription fee is because they still spy on you and make money off your data even if you pay them.

The deal is supposed to be either:

• I get your service for free, you spy on me and sell ads to cover the cost of the service

OR

• I pay for your service, you will NOT show me ads or sell my data

Any service that doesn’t fall into one of those two categories can GTFO.

NFC pay is not ubiquitous enough in my area so I use a phone case that has room for cards. I still need to carry a physical health insurance card and a physical ID as well so my wallet case is not going away. I actually bought a pixel 9 instead of 10 just because my favorite wallet case was available.

I’m considering just getting a Garmin watch that I keep disconnected from my phone to use for NFC pay. Seems like I would be able to set up my cards in Garmin Pay app and then just disconnect it.

It doesn’t even need to be in the store, just let me order one online and check off a “GrapheneOS” box, the same way that I can order a Framework laptop with either Windows or Linux.

But I get your point, I can see how someone could get confused when their phone arrived and required some extra tinkering to get Google stuff to work.

Wouldn’t it be better if it DID? Wouldn’t that get around all the “tamper” detection stuff?

Right now I have Google Play disabled in my owner profile, but it would be nice if apps in secondary profiles could pass the full Play Integrity checks… even though I’m actively trying to transition away from them.

For example Cisco DUO says my device with GrapheneOS installed has been tampered with, and I was hoping that would go away if I could just buy the phone with GrapheneOS installed.

Even if that were true (most of the time I get a rideshare it’s in a place you couldn’t pay me to drive in)…

Driving is way more risky than photography, unless you’re shooting in a war zone.

I’m not so sure.

I guess you could argue that the rideshare driver doesn’t own a car solely for rideshare, but the same argument could be made about the camera.

I’d argue that the rideshare driver is putting more wear and tear on the vehicle than the photographer is per shoot.

OOP maybe doesn’t realize it, but her post is perhaps an argument for spending less on the camera.

The photographer even at these rates that she percieves to be low, is going to pay off her camera before the rideshare driver pays off the car.