A coward for your country, a hero for your family. Godspeed.

All the problems with none of the corruption, very efficient Indiana!

Kessler Syndrome anyone?

They can’t put all of congress in jail!

I also fix typos.

Most of them I made, be it still counts!

JS (run in chrome console just to be quick and dirty) agrees

Nah it’s a 0-index die

I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they’ll never do that. And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn’t be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

The title says “paid lootboxes,” and I don’t think they mean in-game currency.

Maybe not then, read reply

🚨 PEDANTIC POLICE 🚨

Clearly he did sue, he just can’t succeed and gain monetary damages since no civil damage occurred.

It’ll be more likely to be thrown out/mistrialed

Do you have original hardware? I hacked my Wii u recently and it’s so easy. Pretendo just let’s you play like normal, no problems

To be fair, in the US you don’t vote on bills, you just elect representatives. The names are only there to manipulate people into agreeing so they don’t call up their representatives to complain.

Ngl, bad idea. She is doing amazing and an expert in her field. Bernie is already doing a good job representing his people, let him be.

I’d say it’s very reasonable. Steam is EXPENSIVE. If you know anything about bandwidth, it’s the insane cost. They don’t do many exclusivity deals, and they even let you sell steam keys elsewhere with 0 cut for steam without giving users a degraded experience.

I recently built myself a computer, and went with AMD’s 3d cache chips and boy am I glad. I think I went 12th Gen for my brothers computer but it was mid range which hasn’t had these issues to my knowledge.

Also yes, sleeper is the right term.

They overturned the courts previous decision. Technically it wasn’t a law before, it just was heavily implied (as in Congress specifically left things vague bc they wanted federal agencies to fill in the blanks in accordance to the Chevron doctrine).

Basically, there wasn’t any part that was unconstitutional, they just said the court was overstepping their boundaries when they “created” the Chevron doctrine.

Edit: please read the comment below, it seems like my understanding wasn’t quite right

How do I mark this on OSM???

Assuming the article is correct about the slavery, then I would assume the workers don’t actually have any choice in whether they relocate or not. I’m not going to pretend I have great evidence, but that’s what I would infer.

It doesn’t matter the exact reasoning why they moved from a specific area, as long as that reason is caused by sanctions then it’s a consequence.