1319 pts ยท March 16, 2015
I have seen more posts about the Drake/Lamar stuff in the past week than even Trump things. And I don't follow rap, beefs, or anything related to entertainment industry. It's been everywhere, way outside it's usual zone. I wasn't being insulting, I was genuinely surprised and a bit jealous. But thanks for the dick response, dick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6eK-2OQtew I'm unsure how you are on anything on the internet and not heard of the Kendrick Lamar and Drake stuff
No ring
"They don't get to choose the person they have to vote on."Merrick Garland would like to have a word
If you think making it more dangerous than nothing is a good thing, then I hope you get the help you deserve. Even if you aren't aware the "car airbags exploding" thing was literally metal shards being exploded into your face, this is still an absolutely disgusting take.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're 100% right, people need to look closer if they think it's not
Look closer, especially that fur movement
The style being different is not an indicator of AI. The style looking nearly identical to AI plastic wrap sheen makes it seem like it's AI art though. As well as the first image having significant differences from the sketches.
15 did not come
Hell, we had two in the past year that were absolutely brazenly openly corrupt fraudsters and one only got kicked out because he started dropping names, and the other refuses to leave and they aren't kicking him either. I don't trust any of them to do the gatekeeping with their current records.
If we had a reasonable congress, perhaps. Having it locked down to ONLY them seems a bit much. Like if a federal court rules "you did a section 3", I don't see any issues with states or a portion thereof using that ruling to strike someone from ballot. Otherwise, by making it completely politically driven the SC just gave the greenlight for congress to block anyone who pisses in their Cheerios. One party definitely would do that if they could today and the other might get to that level soon.
It's also shocking how many people can't answer simple basic questions like that either with their BS filled resumes. Also, even if you find it a stupid and simple question; welcome to IT, half the job is being able to answer stupid questions without being a dick
I'm seeing about a 50/50 split between people mad because they only read the first page that was unanimous, and people mad that read the whole thing. The first group is just shortsighted and not realizing letting one state unilaterally remove Trump means other states could just unilaterally remove Biden and the absolute shitstorm it would enable. Besides the hopeful/ignorant, that part was expected to be shut down, everything after that is a big overstep that effectively negates enforcement
They said nothing of the sort about the grounds used or merits thereof (except arguably in the dissent, which obviously was not unanimous!). The only part unanimous was that states could not unilaterally remove someone from their ballot. That's all.
No, the ruling was that the disqualification cannot be enforced by any entity besides congress, which is far beyond what was expected and why half the court wrote a dissent included Barrett.
Even Barrett disagreed with that part of the ruling. The effect is that as long as you got 40 of your own party in the Senate, you can commit all the crime you want and you'll never be removed. Again, the only part all 9 agreed with is that states cannot rule themselves on what rises to the level of section 3. The rest completely flies in the face of past rulings for Section 5 which has historically been for congress to EXPAND ballot/candidate access, not restrict.
They all supported the part that said States can't bar someone from the ballot for state determined reasons. But 5 went further than that and said ONLY congressional action can remove someone. So someone could be tried and found guilty of federal crimes in a federal court specifically laid out in section 3 and NOT be barred from running unless congress specifically prohibited them. So they resolved it from a politically driven action by states, to politically driven by congress.
He seemed to be dealing with the incel types ok. This last wave being terminally online LGBT folks added an extra level of internalization to the criticism as he's incredibly supportive of that community. "Friendly" fire hits different, and people and packages showing up to your home is well beyond the pale.
Federal imprisonment, mandatory 75% minimum
Nothing would make me happier than to "be normal" and be able to hear speech well enough to comprehend it without subtitle assistance. Sadly that's not something that can be commanded and have it be so.
Except the supply is still there. Look at India, who is buying multiple times more than they used to, at a significantly lower cost
Do you not know what cookies or device fingerprints are?
OH, and I completely forgot, VMs are also a thing you can use which still do a pretty decent job of masking if you just keep making new ones
Getting a web proxy will near always mask it since that is a middle machine making the request to the server and feeding it back to you
It can, but it's like the adblock wars where they figure out new methods to get something identifiable, others figure out how to stop
If you are using something that is purely VPN, then it will absolutely pass along your device ID info
If you are using a VPN+Proxy, then server end will only see the VPN's IP information, and the Proxy's device ID info.
I have seen more posts about the Drake/Lamar stuff in the past week than even Trump things. And I don't follow rap, beefs, or anything related to entertainment industry. It's been everywhere, way outside it's usual zone. I wasn't being insulting, I was genuinely surprised and a bit jealous. But thanks for the dick response, dick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6eK-2OQtew I'm unsure how you are on anything on the internet and not heard of the Kendrick Lamar and Drake stuff
No ring
"They don't get to choose the person they have to vote on."
Merrick Garland would like to have a word
If you think making it more dangerous than nothing is a good thing, then I hope you get the help you deserve. Even if you aren't aware the "car airbags exploding" thing was literally metal shards being exploded into your face, this is still an absolutely disgusting take.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're 100% right, people need to look closer if they think it's not
Look closer, especially that fur movement
The style being different is not an indicator of AI. The style looking nearly identical to AI plastic wrap sheen makes it seem like it's AI art though. As well as the first image having significant differences from the sketches.
15 did not come
Hell, we had two in the past year that were absolutely brazenly openly corrupt fraudsters and one only got kicked out because he started dropping names, and the other refuses to leave and they aren't kicking him either. I don't trust any of them to do the gatekeeping with their current records.
If we had a reasonable congress, perhaps. Having it locked down to ONLY them seems a bit much. Like if a federal court rules "you did a section 3", I don't see any issues with states or a portion thereof using that ruling to strike someone from ballot. Otherwise, by making it completely politically driven the SC just gave the greenlight for congress to block anyone who pisses in their Cheerios. One party definitely would do that if they could today and the other might get to that level soon.
It's also shocking how many people can't answer simple basic questions like that either with their BS filled resumes. Also, even if you find it a stupid and simple question; welcome to IT, half the job is being able to answer stupid questions without being a dick
I'm seeing about a 50/50 split between people mad because they only read the first page that was unanimous, and people mad that read the whole thing. The first group is just shortsighted and not realizing letting one state unilaterally remove Trump means other states could just unilaterally remove Biden and the absolute shitstorm it would enable. Besides the hopeful/ignorant, that part was expected to be shut down, everything after that is a big overstep that effectively negates enforcement
They said nothing of the sort about the grounds used or merits thereof (except arguably in the dissent, which obviously was not unanimous!). The only part unanimous was that states could not unilaterally remove someone from their ballot. That's all.
No, the ruling was that the disqualification cannot be enforced by any entity besides congress, which is far beyond what was expected and why half the court wrote a dissent included Barrett.
Even Barrett disagreed with that part of the ruling. The effect is that as long as you got 40 of your own party in the Senate, you can commit all the crime you want and you'll never be removed. Again, the only part all 9 agreed with is that states cannot rule themselves on what rises to the level of section 3. The rest completely flies in the face of past rulings for Section 5 which has historically been for congress to EXPAND ballot/candidate access, not restrict.
They all supported the part that said States can't bar someone from the ballot for state determined reasons. But 5 went further than that and said ONLY congressional action can remove someone. So someone could be tried and found guilty of federal crimes in a federal court specifically laid out in section 3 and NOT be barred from running unless congress specifically prohibited them. So they resolved it from a politically driven action by states, to politically driven by congress.
He seemed to be dealing with the incel types ok. This last wave being terminally online LGBT folks added an extra level of internalization to the criticism as he's incredibly supportive of that community. "Friendly" fire hits different, and people and packages showing up to your home is well beyond the pale.
Federal imprisonment, mandatory 75% minimum
Nothing would make me happier than to "be normal" and be able to hear speech well enough to comprehend it without subtitle assistance. Sadly that's not something that can be commanded and have it be so.
Except the supply is still there. Look at India, who is buying multiple times more than they used to, at a significantly lower cost
Do you not know what cookies or device fingerprints are?
OH, and I completely forgot, VMs are also a thing you can use which still do a pretty decent job of masking if you just keep making new ones
Getting a web proxy will near always mask it since that is a middle machine making the request to the server and feeding it back to you
It can, but it's like the adblock wars where they figure out new methods to get something identifiable, others figure out how to stop
If you are using something that is purely VPN, then it will absolutely pass along your device ID info
If you are using a VPN+Proxy, then server end will only see the VPN's IP information, and the Proxy's device ID info.