There's also the reality that women, for the most part, have never known how to change a tire Since they're roughly half the population, that's roughly half the drivers that have never been able to change a tire. Between generational sexist stereotypes and now a general disinterest in car maintenance, which has been heavily pushed by auto dealers and manufacturers, the policy of not including a spare and instead doing a work around makes sense for most use cases.

Is it just me, or are almost all the 'I want to go back to the office' posts all from management or anon's?

All of them allow you to buy your own modem, however, that doesn't waive the rental fee for all of them. Some of them still charge it, whether you use their modem or not. Frontier is one of them, last time I checked. Comcast used to be one of them until the legal winds turned against them.

So, the Christian Nationalists are at it again. Trying to force their view of a Christian 'utopia' (see: dystopia) upon the rest of us, whether we like it or not. They're not satisfied that anyone thinks, or looks, differently than them. Like the Spanish Inquisition, the beating will continue until everyone is one mindless happy snow white caliphate.

This has been a dangerous trend in law enforcement for some time. Politicians and Chiefs of police allow new technology to be used and assume that proper due diligence and restraint will be used by officers when using it. This completely ignores human nature. Most people just want to get through their day with the minimum of hassle possible. That means the average person will put in just enough effort to stop egregious harm from extreme negligence. That said, that still leaves a sizeable minority that just can't bring themselves to give a fuck what harm their laziness and negligence causes people. This case is a perfect example of that. It was perfectly obvious that this woman should not be arrested and prosecuted. You don't commit carjackings when eight months pregnant, and even if you did, it's bloody obvious! But, because the lower level officers couldn't be bothered to do their jobs properly and their superiors and the prosecutor's office equally dangerous policies of supporting the officers no matter what, even when they're obviously in the wrong, like in this case, it leads to bad prosecutions and innocent people put behind bars.

This 'you're either with us or against us' mentality is just as much or more poisonous than the use of untested technologies in our police force in this country and something needs to change before people finally have enough and decide to topple the whole fucking thing because they're tired of it.

Because solving real problems is hard, expensive, take a long time, and thankless. Not the kind of things that win elections with a bunch of people with the attention span of a goldfish!

No, her male counterpart got a heavy sentence too. Gender had nothing to do with it. The reason they got the book thrown at them was they committed the one unforgivable sin: They stole money from rich people. If they'd just fleeced a bunch of retirees out of their life savings, they would have gotten that 'slap on the wrist' that you mentioned. But, since they took money from their rich friends and acquaintances as well as famous people and politicians.... well, they needed to be made an example of.

Considering I watched some of the footage of police aiming their guns at the press, who were quite a distance away from the group of protestors, and open fire, I'd say this one.

When you work against the will of 'The People' than every person is a potential threat.

What you seem to be missing is you're thinking in terms of the 'gold standard' of contract law, which is notarized signatures. But, these have never been required in the US or anywhere else. They're just used to make sure that people can't weasel out of shit with a good lawyer. That vast majority of business is conducted in an 'informal' manner. Agreements made with handshakes, verbal agreements, text messages, hell, even smoke signals would be perfectly legal if both parties were using them. What the judge was ruling on was, in 'informal' contract law, what the meaning of the thumbs up emoji meant in this context. And what it means can be two fold, depending on circumstances. Obviously, it's not being used as a means of encouragement here as that would be irrelevant to the conversation so that means that it's an acknowledgement, the equivalent of saying 'yes' in a legal context. Now, we don't have the benefit of the full conversation and the judge does, it's obvious the judge felt that the 'yes' was accepting the contract in this instance. Likely also based on the farmers past behavior as well. In short, what this looks like is the farmer agreed to deliver it, like he had in the past, but the prices changed and he didn't like the deal anymore and wanted to weasel out of it.

You'll find that people who routinely try to use this use informal, vague, language during contract negotiations or hard to record agreements are often the kind of people who try to weasel out of contracts when they're not to their benefit anymore when it comes time to pay up. Having unfortunately worked with a couple real scummy people in the past, I've gotten used to their modus operandi. In addition of always behaving as if you're going to stab them in the back (because they're planning on doing it to you, it's just a matter of when), they try to make sure that there's no way to call them on anything they've said or agreed to. They make sure there are no written records, or if there are they are incomprehensible, there are no witnesses, and there are no recordings of anything they say. It's why courts are so reluctant to let them out of a contract unless there's a damn good reason. And the fact the 'thumbs up' is vague is nowhere a good enough reason to let someone out of a contract. If they did that, everyone would use it to weasel out of everything the could and they know it! Might that shore up contract law? Maybe. But, even if it did, a lot of innocent people would be taken advantage of first before that happened.

Husband: "Honey, I think EA made this movie?"

Wife: "Why?

Husband: "Look, I got a text on my phone to authorize a payment for an 'Exclusive AMC Theater special scene for $5.99.' It says that unless everyone in the theater pays, it won't play the scene."

Wife: "What happens if we pay and someone else doesn't?"

Husband: "Let me look..."

*10 minutes of looking through the ToS later...*

Husband: "No refunds!"

Being a moderator is a difficult and thankless job. Reddit already had a severe shortage of mode *before* all of this went down. The only way they could replace all of them would be to hire a bunch of people at $15/hr+. And that isn't happening! Especially when they're trying to file an IPO!

What are you talking about? It's the best system money can buy!

Which is why I try to out the copyright cartels for what they are and what their real motives are at every opportunity. It's probably makes about as much impact as a fart in a hurricane, but if enough people do it...

Yeah, but you make one mistake. It's not about the money (not that they wouldn't love billions more in profits), it's about power and control. They want absolute dominion on their product where artists clamor desperately to make art for them nearly for free, the gatekeepers demanding sexual favors for access while dictating what the people's choices are for entertainment. They fear honest competition and alternate sources for distribution more than the copying of a song or movie. The last thing they want is anything that can kick them from their ivory thrones. They abuse the copyright laws to choke off any attempt to create alternate marketplaces and distribution channels for media by having themselves designated as the copyright cops for all media instead of just the media they hold the rights to and by bypassing the courts at every possible occasion so they can become the judge and jury without any oversight. You can see it in all the copyright treaties they're trying to push in the UN where they create their own 'legal' system, without any government agency that can check and balance them, that they can use to kill any media distribution they don't like so they can guarantee they keep their monopoly power in perpetuity. Because it's not about the money, it's about the power and free blowjobs.