“Canceled” is a term assholes came up with to rebrand “consequences” to make it seem like something that isn’t their own fault.
Not sure I agree with this particular take. My recollection is that this usage of cancelled started in progressive internet spaces and was absolutely used to describe consequences for being an asshole.
It’s the exact same trajectory woke took – it was language used by left-leaning people that got co-opted and intentionally diluted by conservatives.
Refusing to cooperate with Democrats is what sank him.
He needed support from Democrats to keep the Speakership. He’s spent the entire year giving them no reason to trust him – including going on the Sunday shows this week knowing this vote was coming and trying to blame Democrats for the near shutdown.
The CEO of Unity used to the the CEO of EA.
It explains a lot.
Something like a body panel is going to expand/contract a couple of orders of magnitude more than 10 microns just from the weather changing day-to-day.
Chiming back in here to say that yes, that was exactly my point.
To maybe make it a little clearer, a hypothetical: imagine a Republican-controlled state enacts a law banning late term abortions and makes it punishable with jail time for women to receive one.
That hypothetical law includes a clause defining a late term abortion as one taking place at any time past 37 weeks from conception.
A woman has an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant. Anti-abortion activists insist that she should be culpable under the law; an abortion at 36 weeks is functionally the same as an abortion at 37 weeks and 36 weeks is very obviously late term pregnancy, they claim.
If the local sheriff then arrests that woman, is the sheriff behaving lawfully?
That’s why the government being bound to the letter of the law is so incredibly important. A law can be stupid, harmful, regressive, or otherwise bad in any number of ways, but if the government must act within the law as written, then at least we know what rules we’re playing by and can work to change them.
If the government is allowed to arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the letter of the law in favor of what the people enforcing it wish the law were, that will be abused by bad actors. That sort of thing is more or less a universal component of authoritarianism.
tl;dr - we shouldn’t do it because allowing it will allow it to be used against us.
There’s the letter of the law and then there’s the spirit of the law.
Only the former should be legally enforceable. If you start enforcing the latter regardless of the former, the legal system stops being about rule of law and more about the subjective whims of those enforcing it.
If the letter of the law doesn’t capture the intent, then the law needs to change, but laws shouldn’t be subjectively enforced on the basis of what someone feels like they should mean rather than what they actually say.
Hall effect has been the norm in all but the cheapest sim gear (sticks, throttles, etc) for a very long time now.
Hall effect gimbals on radio control/drone controllers have been pretty common for some time, too.
It’s mostly that this is a solved problem that more general purpose controllers are just now catching up to after the problem’s been exacerbated by the smaller gimbals used in modern controllers.
FedEx ground are all contractors. It depends on who has the contract for your area, but they tend to be pretty bad IME as well.
I also can’t see this part surviving appeal:
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote.
Oregon set the capacity limit at 10 rounds. Practically every handgun commonly used for self-defense has a capacity of at least 15.
Swap caps lock and left control. It’s the first thing I do on most of my computers, especially notebooks.
The newer versions of Windows Powertoys from Microsoft makes it easy on Windows.
Been easy on Mac and most Linux distros for years.
Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that – it’s not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.
A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.
At least that’s the theory. It shouldn’t be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they’re actually doing.