Not sure what the solution would be that is proposed by the legal experts but it seems to me that we already have a system for dealing with that for the office of the president in the form of vice presidents etc taking over if they die. Not that you should have to have an entire chain of people ready to take over for every SC justice but rather, if one dies or retires or whatever before their 18 years is up then a replacement can be appointed to finish the remainder of their term.
Senokir
joined 1 year ago
The MGS games make no sense in the ways that you've already pointed out, but at the same time there is a lot of very well thought out plot that does make sense in the context of the universe that he's built.
In short, lmao it makes no sense and it's one of my favorite series.
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ATTACKED ME FOR MY REPORTING — AND THEY’RE DOING IT TO HIDE INFO FROM THE PUBLIC
Paywall link + no context given as to what actually occurred other than someone claiming that they are being silenced. That very well may be true but without more context I can't make that determination. It may also well be true that the claims by the DoJ are true and that the narrator of this article is an unreliable narrator.
If you want me to think or feel a particular way then don't lock the article behind a paywall and give actual context so that I can come to my own conclusions.
As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is. I've heard that a surprising percentage of people just don't even know that ad blockers exist. If that's the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don't have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.
In my experience they often do go vegan overnight though. The key tends to be actually connecting the food on your plate with where it came from and accepting that animals are capable of suffering. Once that connection is made, animal products simply aren't seen as food anymore and going vegan overnight is the only logical conclusion.
Some people may be further along the spectrum towards being vegan when this connection is actually made but regardless of if you are vegetarian, "only eat free range meat", or an unapologetic meat eater, once the connection is made they are vegan.
The survey isn't about the "niche" subset of the population that is religious. It is about the composition of the entire population. Not a subset of the population so that isn't relevant.
Edit: to be clear, I understand that there may be some niche subsets within this survey that may not be represented because there are only 20 people in the US that believe in that weird religion, but again, that has nothing to do with the larger, non-niche subsets which are absolutely represented with enough accuracy to draw statically significant conclusions with a sample size of 1000
The only reason plant based meats haven't been way cheaper than animal meat the entire time is because of how heavily subsidized the animal agriculture industry is. Without the government literally single handedly propping up the industry it wouldn't be a viable way to make money.
That's a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn't matter what you do to it, you won't get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don't see how this technique couldn't be applied.
Edit: and to be clear, I don't know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn't entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.
Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.
It's interesting that they would choose to blur them if it's that sensitive considering blurring things isn't actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.
And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn't take long to do either.
view more: next ›
Laws override precedent. The court's job is explicitly to interpret the laws made by congress. Precedent is simply the way that previous courts have interpreted the laws at the time. If the relevant laws to the case haven't changed since the previous case, that is where precedent comes in. If there are new laws written by congress then those are more important than precedent.
Another user brought up the idea that they might still try to rule the new law unconstitutional but that would be a much harder bar to achieve legitimately since the constitution is intentionally rather succinct. Of course if the court is corrupt and no one actually challenges their power I suppose they could say anything they want- precedent overrules laws, anything they don't like is unconstitutional, for the low low price of a vacation getaway you too can influence my rulings, etc. But legally speaking laws override precedent and doing away with a law because it is unconstitutional is an extremely high bar which can't realistically be met by the vast majority of laws unless the law directly goes against the few rules that the constitution establishes.