Willie

They requested the delay to July, since he is in court for another case in another area. I suppose it was reasonable to grant it. It’d be unfair for someone to not get their right to a trial, even if they were found guilty of a crime in another area.

It’d make more sense to keep him in custody in the meantime though. I mean, that’s what they do for normal people. Right?

Ready for nothing to happen?

Come on, they even missed their chance to call it CreateHentAI!

We use 3 of our stove burners, and never touch the other. So for me, I guess one of mine is very lonely.

Can we really handwave away the whole Adam and Eve thing though?

If we do, then what did Jesus die for?

Well, I never really thought about it until now either. Haha. Though, it was mostly a choice of apathy, since when I’m dead I won’t really care what someone does with them, I only really get to pretend that I will while I’m alive today.

If they’re not charging for my organs that get donated, then that’s pretty cool. I mean, I was given mine for free, so it only makes sense to give them for free when I’m done with them.

Of course, I live in the middle of nowhere, so whether they’ll find someone who can use my stuff before it goes bad is a whole different thing entirely.

It’s good that you were able to find some lungs.

My ID says I am, but I’m not registered anywhere else. Why did I have my ID say it? Because I felt like it that day when I renewed it. That’s literally all there was to it.

Real talk though, I almost don’t think I should be donating my organs. Why should the hospital get for free what they’re going to charge a family hundreds of thousands of dollars for?

While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.

So by putting a stamp on an absentee ballot, therefore paying the postal service to deliver it, am I committing an Alabama felony? Or are interactions with the postal service explicitly exempted from it?

Windows has been getting worse and worse all the time. With any luck, as Windows gets worse, interest in Linux will rise on its own. But it’s hard to say what tomorrow brings.

No, it’s better to be honest. The average user isn’t ready for Linux, because Linux is not ready for the average user. I’d never try and get someone to use it if they’re not already interested. I hate that it is this way, but it is. Linux is only really for people who already want to use it. Because if you’re not interested in using it, you’re not going to put forth the time investment to gain the benefits from it. No matter what angle I look at it from Linux is not for the average person.

Your second paragraph says it all. Find out if the user needs to dual boot? The answer is obviously “No” because no matter what they’re using the computer for, Linux is unneeded for them, since they have Windows. There are tangible benefits to using Windows, since it runs their software, meanwhile, you failed to list any real benefits to using Linux for the average user. It’s faster? No, not really, since they’ll be learning how to use it, and even ignoring that, it’s not so much faster that they’ll perceive it anyway. It’s more secure? Not really, Windows is the better choice for the average user in that respect, since it’ll automatically force them to restart the machine every week to install security updates. Main choice of professionals? That’s not entirely true, and even if it were, it’s not relevant, the average user is not a professional. And for anyone who already owns a computer already running Windows, Windows was ‘free’ too.

The only time to have this discussion is if the user is having a PC built, and then the answer is also “No” to Linux, because they’re going to buy Windows anyway, since it’s better for gaming, and that’s the primary reason for someone to build a PC, unless they’re doing a specialized task like video editing, and if they are invested enough into the task to want a PC just for that, they have specialized software that almost always runs only on Windows, and even if it were able to run on either, it’s not my place to alter their workflow.

The real elitist attitude is thinking people need to use Linux in the first place. For me and (maybe) you, it might get the job done, but for my family and friends. It’s better that they use what they’re comfortable with. The main point of a computer is to accomplish tasks, and giving them Linux is a hindrance to that.

Linux is great, but it’s not for everyone, and it may never be.

I feel like this is so they can deny that they fed all the webpages that they cached to their ‘AI’ training datasets later when someone accuses them of that. Now when asked about the copies of webpages that they have they can be like “What copies?” and end the conversation there.

In a way, but since you can only be US president for two terms, “doing it to get re-elected” means that you don’t believe they’ll continue doing whatever they’re doing during their second term if you re-elect them.

Yeah, I learned all about ITINs and other ways that these folks can get real jobs and pay taxes a few hours ago. It was quite an interesting read.

Like I said in my comment, I’ve met very few undocumented immigrants. And realistically, if they can perform a job as a normal person, and pay taxes like a normal person, then even if I have met more, I likely never knew, because why would you go around telling folks about your situation in that case. That’d be a good way to blow your cover. And it’s not like I’m going to ask about their experience immigrating, since that’s not really a subject that’s appropriate to approach with people you don’t know.

I live in the middle of nowhere, so my experience is likely vastly different from all y’all’s. So it’s nice to hear your perspectives. Thanks for sharing.

Dang bro, you’re right. I mistakenly assumed the article was over at the section where they presented me with other articles to read, since it didn’t make sense for them to show me that if the article I was reading continued. So from my perspective the article was basically “They pay taxes, we promise.”. They even used language that seemed to close out the article to me before that section by saying “More importantly, the claims about taxes, housing costs and immunizations are false.” and not elaborating further.

I wouldn’t have even made my first comment had I seen the section below, since they answered exactly the questions I was asking. Haha. I was about to roll in here and ask if we had even looked at the same article, before I gave it a second look. I guess in the end, we hadn’t.

This whole ITIN thing is interesting, I’ve seen the fields for it in the past, but never really thought about it too much since I always assumed it was for people who are in like… a transitional period of their immigration of sorts, not for fellas who aren’t supposed to be working. The article that the article linked about ITINs makes it sound like you can even get your tax return with it. That’s crazy, but it makes sense.

You’re assuming they receive paychecks at all, though. All undocumented immigrants I’ve known the situations of in my time (which is very few mind you, so it’s possible that this is not the norm) got paid in cash for the work they did, instead of getting a check. And I find it unlikely that the business or person paying them in cash under the table would have gone and paid their income tax for them and announced “These are the taxes the illegal immigrants I hire are paying!” and I even more doubt that the folks who received the funds paid their income tax on their own, since their employers were already playing on their fears of being discovered by the government to pay them lower wages than the market would normally accept (I want to say it was below the federal minimum at the time).

While I agree that we should totally be getting more taxes from rich folks. It’s not really relevant to the current discussion about the taxes paid by undocumented immigrants. That said, I’m not super concerned about undocumented immigrants paying income tax, since it’s really the fellas who employ them that are the problem. I was only mentioning it because I was curious as to how true what that article was saying really was, since it did not match my experiences.

I’m having a hard time believing that undocumented immigrants pay all their taxes. You can say they pay some for sure, since there’s no way they don’t pay sales tax and such. Wouldn’t undocumented immigrants not have to pay the largest tax most folks have to pay, though, since they likely wouldn’t be paying income tax? I suppose if they once held a work visa or whatever, and had it expire, and they never relocated or changed jobs somehow, they’d still be paying their income tax, but I feel like that’d be rare, unless workplaces have no idea when your visa expires, and isn’t required to fire you when they find out.

I wish that article wasn’t about some random twitter post, and had more information in it. Maybe then they would have explained this. I would have assumed the tweet was BS the moment they said those folks don’t have to pay rent. Like… where did the person who believed that tweet think those fellas lived?