If politicians actually have a shit about protecting US citizens data, they’d push for legislation to protect US citizens data from all data harvesting apps. Instead “china bad, ban”.

What’s your point in linking to that opinion piece?

I just upload it to YouTube as “unlisted” and share the link

There was never any evidence of this. The best explanation I heard is that Magnus’ company was merging with chess.com right before a tournament, and with that the information of cheating bans were made available to him. He found out that Hans had been banned for cheating a couple years prior on chess.com. Speculation is that this put Magnus on tilt during his match with Hans, and losing just confirmed Magnus’ suspicion that Hans is a cheater IRL as well as online.

At some point of being late it is presumed missing, and the fee is to replace the book so other patrons can enjoy. It’s not a “free books to keep forever building”

Because no defense lawyer would ever advise that

If your client is actually innocent, there’s a place for getting on the stand with righteous indignance. But… That was clearly not the case here.

I wish we could pin it to some objective measure and stop dealing with this set of decisions. Same with other forms of support.

I think they were afraid of discovery revealing even more malicious information than what’s being assumed.

I never believed it would happen. I’m assuming one of Nays will be coming for his throat now and calling for removal. Maybe he just gave up trying to delay the inevitable.

Is there any statement as to why it was vetoed?

Such a great change!

Thanks for the nuanced info, that makes a lot of sense.

I guess we have different definitions of “advance payment”. When the retainer runs out, work should stop.

What insane lawyers are working for those grifters and not getting paid in advance?

They’re not saying it equates. They’re saying the same protein was found in people with those three issues. They’re not saying they’re in any other way related, equated, or causal.

Right. Just because we’re seeing it on video, doesn’t mean it’s new, increasing, or worth more and more and more funding for cops.

Only for marginalized people that the supreme Court doesn’t like. White men will be fine.

Gun owners: if police can murder you for having a gun, you don’t have the right to have a gun.

Why let facts get in the way of a good outrage?

Homeschoolers: the silent welfare queens