I’m glad she’s the candidate too, but you’re just making up a scenario in your head based on no evidence.

That was me up until my mid 20’s

What about 3 hours early in the night, say 11pm to 2am?

In a pinch I could, by pretending to be in a zoom meeting.

True, but I’ve found it is just as like to change things for the worse as the better. Waking up from a deep deep sleep after only an hour can leave me as a zombie for the whole day.

I ended up sleeping for maybe 20 minutes this time and it has worked out so far.

He has to be stopped but at this point the only chance might be if the feds have him on tape committing treason. Which feels probable.

Great answer

Ripley

It was legit the last time I bought a game from them, 10 years ago

It me.

God i suck at platformers.

The public does benefit from it because the people who’s jobs it is to protect the public have access to the data.

We’re getting our monies worth, especially if you’ve paid attention to how accurate hurricane tracking and intensity models have become over the past 10+ years.

Anything by Kiasmos. Also Chopin.

Some context from a mod at /r/law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

Brandenburg Test:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Anyone seen an explanation for this trend of useless and stupid censoring of words?

I never could defuse all the bombs at the dam.

It’s s one of my biggest regrets from childhood. Right up there with the rest of my early traumas that have guided my life in major and subtle ways.

I hope the shutter sound was turned off

Maybe. The people who have always said 30 years were scientists and engineers. Those now saying 5 to 10 years are VC backed startups.

Progress is definitely being made but I’ll believe the optimists when I see the results.

That’s not catnip

I love it. Reminds me of close up views of sun spots. Or maybe iron filings in a magnetic field.