You also can't use it in a commercial manner that might imply a relationship or endorsement. Coke can use Pepsi in a commercial to compare the two products. They can't have the Mets mascot dancing around in their commercial for no reason because it could be taken to imply an association or endorsement from the team.
Companies trademark different variations of their marks. Logos and characters are resigned all the time. A clip from Steamboat Willie is currently the opening logo for Disney Animation Studios so you can't even argue that particular form of the mark is not in use.
Borrower 1 has the capability to take on $45k in unsecured debt at a moment's notice. If they do this, they might be too stretched to afford to pay me back. I would rather lend to 2.
If you properly quote text, and format date cells as dates, then yes, it does.
Other INDIE devs. Indie devs aren't charging $100 + loot boxes. Team Cherry are in the unique position of being like 3 guys whose previous game blew up and are basically guaranteed to sell 10M+ copies of the sequel. They can afford to spend 7 years on Silksong and then sell it for $20.
Other teams that aren't already set for life are worried because they will need to charge more for smaller, less polished games in order to afford to eat.
Yes, but then the GOP implemented the southern strategy, and deliberately switched places with the Democrats, who were already beginning to support civil rights. Since then, republicans have consistently stoked racist fears among southern baptist conservatives. This is a dumb tired argument that assumes history stopped in 1968.
They have a choice without vouchers. The majority of people claiming a voucher were already sending their kids to private school.
Vouchers rarely cover the entire cost of a private school tuition. Poor people can't afford to avail themselves of the voucher. They amount to a tax break for people of means who were going to send their kid to private school anyway. They also suck money out of the public education system. The district still has to pay the fixed costs for facilities, staff, and services, regardless of how many families take money out of the system with vouchers. This leaves the more impoverished kids in underfunded schools with even less funding.
It should be "Court Tells Google to Continue Violations of User Privacy". If they made multiple billions and were fined $0.5b, and none of the executives went to jail, then there is no reason not to keep doing it. The fine needs to exceed the benefit derived from the infraction.
Look at productivity vs wages since the mid 70s when digitization really started taking off. Rich people have derived virtually all the benefit. Yes, a handful of middle class knowledge workers have been created in IT, but compare that to the number of jobs that have been deskilled or eliminated.
Honey is no better than sugar, what terrible advice
You definitely do not want to give it to children. Lots of hormones in bee puke.
It's not due to hormones. Honey can contain Clostridium bacteria spores, which if they become active in a child's gut, can give them botulism poisoning. It's realy only infants less than a year old though, or two years if you want to be really cautious.
You don't have to shoot in HDR, and even if you do, just because the dynamic range is available doesn't mean you have to use the full gamut. Does every scene filmed in color have a full spectrum rainbow in it? No? Then we also don't need 1000nits of contrast in every scene either.
I do think it highly depends on the implementation. On an OLED screen capable of 1400+ nits, it looks great. On a budget LCD with only like 32 zones, it makes dark scenes just look muddy. You are better off with vanilla 4k SDR in that case.
If you get the exposure wrong, the information is lost, there's only so much you can do in post to make it look acceptable.
The quote literally says that the the wealthy will "make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life... had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants". Equal portions, i.e. all wealth will be equally proportioned. No mention of means testing or meritocracy or anything. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but I think that rich people will just do it spontaneously is a little naive, but go off I guess.
They certainly don't consume as much more as they have more, but they do still consume orders of magnitude more resources. Just think of the fuel consumption of their yachts alone.
I think the point is, that even in Smiths own words, is that they shouldn't. It's strangely perverted that his works have become almost a fetishistic object of worship among libertarians and laize faire economists, when Smith's precondition for giving the market free reign is that most rich people would give most of their money to charity of their own accord.
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
