Based on the fucked up unicode in their post, they are posting from an Apple handheld device, and therefore yes, odds are that they are a clueless pleb who can not navigate a directory structure unless cheerful colored icons are involved.

There's a lot of stuff in seawater besides just salt and water. There's the subject whale poop of course. But seriously, what about all the various algae and plankton that are going to be aerosolized, will anyone potentially be affected by that? A lot of marine algae are toxic, including some with paralytic neurotoxins. What about bacterial load from wastewater runoff in the bay? Chemical fertilizer residues? Has the Fukushima plume reached the bay area yet? Even uncontaminated seawater is far more radioactive than rainwater due to the naturally occurring dissolved minerals.

Individuals within the company can face criminal liability for actions that they took while representing, or misrepresenting, the company. For instance the individual person who signed the application for the airworthiness certificate, Chief Project Engineer Michael Teal, warranted that the information that the company provided to substantiate that application was complete and correct. If it can be shown that he knew that information was not complete or correct, OR if he had the duty to know but neglected that duty, then he can and should be prosecuted for defrauding the federal government.

Based on his prior testimony before Congress, I think it should be obvious that he neglected his duty as CPE.

150 page interview transcript - https://democrats-transportati...

Soundbites for Plebs - https://www.seattletimes.com/b...

The law firm representing one of the previous whistleblowers seems to think so. I guess we will see. Still under desk and cowering. https://www.newsweek.com/boein...

That's fair. My bad for jumping to conclusions. There is a depressing element of misogyny online and it truly baffles me. I'm in the middle of the height bell curve, far from jacked/athletic, not rich by any means, and during my manwhoring days (almost exclusively fueled by online dating, not a clubbing person, so it was rare for me to stumble across a physical/mental attraction in the real world) I had no issues whatsoever lining up dates and sex. The incel crowd wants you to think it's three sixes, six inch dick, six figure income, and six feet tall. I had none of those things during my manwhoring phase.

There's no trick to it other than be able to carry on a conversation, have a few interests you can talk passionately about, and accept the fact that sexual chemistry won't always be there. I wound up with some long term platonic friends out of my online dating days, who have been with me longer than any romantic relationship, including a few in other countries that I have since visited. Wouldn't trade those experiences for anything.

Why are you assuming every person on these sites wants to find a partner and never come back? Some people are looking for casual sex, others a situationship, others an activity partner they may or may not have sex with. The ultimate point to any dating site is simply to introduce you to other humans. What you do with those humans is entirely up to you and them.

If you think sex bots can replace an actual human being you're probably an incel. And if all you're after is empty sex, well, it's not THAT hard to find, unless again, you're a misogynistic incel asshole.

The ratio ain't 10 to 1 either. It's closer to 1.8 to 1. Bumble publishes a lot of these stats if you care to dig into them, unlike the competition, which these days is almost all owned by one company. Bumble's stats aligns with what I saw in the pre-swipe era when it was actually tenable to look at all profiles in your geographical region. I dug into that on OkCupid in the oughts, before they sold out to Match and got lame. In every city I looked at it was between 1.5 to 2.0 men to every woman. I never regarded those odds as particularly burdensome, given the caliber of men that I was competing against, lol.

Maybe if you're working for Mom & Pop, Inc.

It's pretty hard to believe MGM doesn't have a SecOps team and that said team wouldn't be well aware of the fact that most ransomware extortion originates in unfriendly sanctioned countries.

Congress should pass a law making such payments illegal in all circumstances, IMHO, it will remove much of the incentive to commit these crimes in the first place. They'll still happen and a few smaller outfits (e.g., Mom & Pop, Inc.) may chance paying the ransom, but no large Fortune 500 with its legions of lawyers would do so.

Not if the money is going to a sanctioned country, e.g., Russia, which it frequently does.

If they're on-shore, different story, see D.B. Cooper, although still ill advised as all it does is encourage future attacks/demands.

Surely, if anyone needs life insurance it's the Jedi. ;-)

Insurance is priced on risk, if you live in hurricane alley, you're going to pay more, ditto if you have a bad driving record. Would you find it fairer if they weren't allowed to surcharge for DWIs and we all got to pay higher rates?

There's a lot the insurance industry does that I think is BS but this is not one of those things. You've picked a terribly lonely hill to die on if you seriously mean to stick up for all the poor victims of driving under the influence who now have to pay higher insurance rates.

I'm not sure if I should ask where you live -- because I've lived in States (Louisiana) with stupidly high insurance rates -- or if I should bust out my small violin for the poor broke individual that owns four cars. :D

We pay around $1,600/yr for two cars, that we do not own outright and carry collision/comp on, and hell, it was closer to $1,200 before the masses realized you could steal my partner's car with a flathead screwdriver and TikTok video. My 2024 model year costs less to insure than her 2019 model year, lol, how dare USAA price ease of theft into the rate.

Actually, what they'll do, is raise the price of the ad-free tier to the point that it's unaffordable for most. They're on record on earnings calls saying they make more money from the cheaper (to the consumer) ad tier than they do from the current ad free tiers. The Internet allows them to do highly targeted advertising in a way that was never possible for broadcast/cable television, so they can charge a lot more money to the advertisers for the privilege of airing their ads, and as you note, they're unstoppable.

TNG's remaster is 1080 and was extremely well done, you're denying yourself a great experience if you stick to DVD cuts. It's absolutely beautiful in 1080. You can also see a lot of the gags the set designers built into consoles, thinking the text would never be visible on screen. You'll also realize society owes Marina Sirtis a collective apology, lol, but that's a different discussion.

My favorite part of Paramount+ and a few other platforms, when they decided to stick ads in, they failed to do what TV has been doing since the 1950s and properly sync the ads to the scene cuts. Doing a re-watch of TNG with my partner and where the commercial break naturally was, no commercial, you'd get 5-10 seconds into the next scene (the return from commercial in the original airing) and then BANG, cut to ads.

I'm shocked they couldn't find a way to automate this task and failing that, pay some intern an entry level wage to do it for them, "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to watch 178 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation and press this button after each scene change." I'll sign up for that job at minimum wage, lol.

Of course, the real answer is they just don't care about the consumer experience, it's all about $$$

We gave up and signed up for the ad free tier, which is kind of funny, because if you listen to their earnings calls they make MORE money from the cheaper to the consumer ad supported tiers. You'd think they'd want to get it right.

You might note that I said most people don't regard it as inherently dangerous. I chose brevity rather than a wall of text about alcohol abuse that manifests in a minority of users.

Regarding insurance companies, I think you already know the answer: That person has demonstrated absolutely horrible judgment and the statistics on recidivism for DWI aren't flattering. They'll probably cancel you outright, if allowed under state law, but if they keep you they will surcharge you for the longest period of time allowed under state law. Note that they don't ask if you drink and surcharge you if you answer in the affirmative. They surcharge people that have demonstrated an inability to drink within the confines of the law and common sense.

Long ago in a galaxy far away I worked in the insurance business. Would it surprise you to know there's one thing you can do that will frighten an insurance company more than a DWI? Fall asleep behind the wheel. You were probably just fatigued but for all they know there's an underlying medical condition that will manifest again and again. They will run for the hills if allowed by state law/regulation. I saw more cancellations/non-renewals for this than for DWI.

Either scenario poses extreme risk for a policy limit claim, e.g., you seriously injure or kill someone. That can happen with mundane violations (speeding, running a stop sign, etc.) too but it's a lot less likely. They don't care about property damage, short of totaling someone's Bentley there's a limit on property claims. Most are rounding errors for a large insurance company. Personal injury on the other hand, that can easily hit seven digits, occasionally eight. You probably don't have that much coverage but most people carry six digits worth. $300,000 was the average when I was in the business. That's real money by anyone's metric.