![](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/d1dfc6ea-8cfc-49d6-b703-1454d36b30cf.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4095722b-93d8-463e-bd80-4e0451f7efe7.jpeg)
deleted by creator
Seer of the tapes! Knower of the episodes!
deleted by creator
It will vary by state, but generally:
When only one of the two parties is unwilling to continue the employer-employee relationship, it is obvious who is the moving party. If employment was still available to the claimant and the claimant refused to continue working, then the claimant is the moving party. If the employer will not allow the claimant to continue work, even though the claimant wants to, then the employer is the moving party.
A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Not that SCOTUS is held to the same code of conduct that all other federal judges are held to, of course.
Flowering and fruiting plants generally need bees, birds, etc. for pollination and seed spreading.
At least twice before, Thomas has similarly defended his failure to make required disclosures as an unintentional error or a misunderstanding of the rules.
Seems like the only possible explanations are that he’s lying or he’s incompetent.
Her continued presence on the bench, not just on this one case, is fatally undermining the already tenuous legitimacy of the federal judiciary.
It’s also an English expression.
It doesn’t have to be addition. It could be a hash function, etc.
All participants select their own random whole number and publish it to the group. All participants add all the numbers together. The result is either odd or even (heads/tails) and everyone arrives at the same result independently.
Annual commemorative pastry observance
Destabilizing the system is the point. Trump is just the tool.
Not a bot. But also not an idiot, which is the target audience here.
Not only is it normalized, but it’s being weaponized. See, for example, the recent XZ backdoor which was equal parts hacking and a psi-op against the maintainer.
When in doubt, shut up.
The best way to make money in Vegas is to sell light bulbs.
Not exactly the same problem. In the same way that gun control doesn’t address the problem of hostile foreign militaries. Yes, both involve guns, but the laws and policies that address one are inapplicable and inappropriate to the other.
The law in question addresses the problem of foreign adversaries having easy access to manipulate US public opinion. The law you suggest addresses the problem of advertisers having that access. Both are serious concerns, both need to be addressed, but they are not the same problem and the solutions are markedly different.
require every company operating within the US to show users exactly what data is collected and allow them to delete any or all of it as desired
That would be a very different kind of law from the one we’re talking about.
That’s the opposite of what the court said.
It’s almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.
I wouldn’t willingly live anyplace else.