https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Out (2017, the name of a film related to this!)

Katseye

for one, they’re called “gas guzzlers” for a reason~

And we should just bend over our language just because Americans find it funny?

US media now uses it as well

I don’t see that either: https://www.google.com/search?q=“jab”&tbm=nws

It’s been a standard Britishism for a century.

The medical sense of “jab”, meanwhile, has a rather less salubrious origin, as a 1914 dictionary of criminal slang introduces it: “Jab, current amongst morphine and cocaine fiends. A hypodermic injection.”

—https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call-vaccinations-jabs

The UK has always called it a jab and headlines are optimized for length. This sentiment is just US defaultism.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call-vaccinations-jabs

The medical sense of “jab”, meanwhile, has a rather less salubrious origin, as a 1914 dictionary of criminal slang introduces it: “Jab, current amongst morphine and cocaine fiends. A hypodermic injection.”

NYP’s equivalent is The Sun.

Not even close. The Guardian is way better and the only English (as in England) news source that is independent. It’s extremely good.

they just picked someone who needed the discount and agreed

I think so. There’s just one significant change that I don’t think affects the main goal.

The law said that corporations had artificial-person rights, “the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs”, including (but not limited to) those in a list. _Citizens United _ basically tacked electoral spending onto that list. The original bill would make the law say “[corporations will only have these rights that we say and nothing else]” followed by the original list. The version that was signed is much more like the original law; it said corporations had artificial-person rights other than electoral spending including (but not limited to) those in the original list.

There was also a later amendment that changed the effective date from 1 January to 1 July.

you’re saying they would be afraid of the gallows, for the sole purpose of saying they’d do it, which would mean that we wouldn’t need to give them the gallows. that is one step away from saying we don’t need the gallows because they’d do it by themselves. that is dangerous.

did you read the actual (heathermeeker.com) link you posted? here’s its very second paragraph:

This week, many people sent me the link to the Malus “Clean Room as a Service” announcement. I don’t think I’ve ever had so many people send me a single link. Now, ‘’‘this website is fake’‘’, but you have to wade into it a bit to figure that out. No real company would be foolish enough to represent anything as “legally distinct,” for example. The name “Malus” suggests a bad actor, and I guess it’s a pun on Manus, a popular AI agent. So, it seems site is a troll.

but cable didn’t improve which is what the question asks for

That’s a single study from 2009; I posted 52 studies compiled last week.

the article is saying that researchers are pretty sure now that testosterone is not the cause

you didn’t explicitly say anything we could go on either before yesterday’s reply

machine learning is AI

people only said suicide detection was a good use of AI, not crime surveillance. and nobody’s pretending stopping a suicide attempt treats the underlying issues either, and that’s still better than not stopping it

do you see how replying to “every city in WA except of Seattle doesn’t make it real easy to live without a car, and the city in the article is very much outside of Seattle” with “you can’t read, i was just talking about places that don’t need them” makes one think you’re saying that “the city in the article is not one of the places that don’t need them”?

can’t you just explain I’ve got no idea what you’re saying either

flippancy is just the progressive version of virtue signaling—it gets nobody else on your side