Narrator: “The solution was another clapped out beater from Europe.”
Narrator: “The solution was another clapped out beater from Europe.”
There are better ways to do that even in Excel!
And that’s their only “good” product.
The rest is utter garbageware, designed for one purpose: to check boxes on RFPs.
The HR profession’s reputation as pond scum remains intact.
I still reckon we should all just refer to him as “Thirty Four”.
Let’s not forget he stole an election with the help of a corrupt Republican governor and the Supreme Court, either.
Oh yeah, it’s easy enough to beat one you know how.
Yes, thanks to moderators who abuse the system, and lazy admins who don’t hold them to account.
Reddit uses fingerprinting techniques to track you across accounts. You need to look into defeating these tactics in order to successfully register (and keep) a new account.
Change browser, block html canvas, change IP address, etc. Also time plays a factor. Leave it a couple of weeks.
Or, recognise that Reddit has become completely overrun with shitposting bots and has little in the way of interesting content to offer these days, and move on.
“On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” - Charles Babbage
Today it’s immigrants and trans people.
Just give it a couple of years for the hype/boom/bust cycle to complete, then it’ll settle down and people will start using the tech appropriately.
This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.
The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.
A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.
The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:
the defendant—
- (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
- (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
- © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…
But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.
It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.
Not to mention it’ll work terribly in most light conditions.
My work machine is W11 and has options to change it. Not one of those stupid ‘home’ vs ‘pro’ version things is it?
They used to have that as a filter. Although for a long while you could pick short (<4 mins) or long (>20 mins) but not medium length videos.
This, too, was a sign they had no fucking idea what they were doing.
Nope, I’ve seen it myself. Cannot imagine a more useless feature.
For web browsing? No.
ADHD is definitely a possibility. I have it and can relate to those issues. However stress, anxiety and fatigue can also cause problems like this without there being an underlying condition like ADHD. Definitely agree on seeking professional help though, if that’s possible.
Wouldn’t want them anywhere that is prone to earthquakes - the entire Pacific rim, for example.
IMO Labour should be loudly shouting now about the likelihood of this whole thing ending in disaster. It’ll be too late after people die, both practically and politically.