No. While parts C, D, and E are legally shaky, A and B, so long as they are temporally centered around the event, aren't on shaky legal ground at all. So if he had destroyed they data prior to attempting to cross the border itself, the government would almost certainly lose in court. But if he wiped the phone after he entered the checkpoint but before they asked him for it, they would probably win, and given that he caused the destruction of the information after they seized the phone, they will certainly win.

Only if A) he can convince a jury that he's the type of retard who would setup a duress password so that a 1 or 2 letter typo of the real password would activate the duress password and B) the feds weren't monitoring the phone electronically and able to see the inputs. One of the first questions the prosecutor would ask would be "So you've never mistyped anything in your life? Note that they would take the time to get all his old texts from his service providers and any posts from his online accounts, so assuming he followed his lawyers advice he would say yes he had. Then there would be a series of followup questions which would make him look like an idiot for choosing that type of password, before the prosecutor would wonder aloud why an idiot would install a separate OS on his phone, leading the jury to conclude he was lying about the real password being close to the duress password.

You can simply state because you felt like it. They have no authority to search the cloud servers and they cannot legally compel speech, only truth.

False statements to the FBI are illegal, and what with them not keeping recordings of their interviews they have conveniently charged people with this before. CBP is not the FBI however. That being said, providing a password that wipes the phone is destruction of evidence, regardless of whether there was anything illegal on the phone or not. He's proper fucked.

Given the complete and total failure of US public schools, the funding of which outside of an extremely low funding level per pupil found almost solely in rural schools has zero correlation with performance, the best bet would be for them to open up their own schools and allow applicants or set up workshops for anyone who homeschools to apply to attend, along with making available math, grammar, rhetoric, and science materials available for free.

Meanwhile, that CAFE standards put in place by Bush and Obama mandated ever larger trucks and SUVs, created the crossover market and eliminated the small and midsized truck market as well as the large but low car segment in the US.

It wasn't solely a winterization issue. Had the entire state been running on natgas, the outages would have been near to nonexistent. It was the poor winterization combined with the massive drop in pressure along the natgas lines dropping the internal temperature of the lines precipitously as every available turbine spooled up to try and compensate for wind and solar power shitting the bed during the event.

The DDoS method of problems solving is the only way to beat multiple PaC adventure games without a walkthough.

Any place not access controlled by the entity attempting to control X is considered a public forum for purposes of legal issues which may arise from their control of the intellectual property and associated contracts in question. If any specifics of game development beyond work hours and conditions were discussed on said forum which union organizers who were not employees of R* had access too, R* was within their rights to fire the employees participating in the forum. Which since most people can't compartmentalize for shit without extensive training was almost certainly the case.

You do realize this is for NEW reactors right?

If the rates are similar to other forms of gambling than the majority wouldn't be due to insider information. Edge cases will be, but unless you think they have inside information about the weather, the rates between Polymarket and regular gambling wins are relatively consistent as detailed in the article.

What makes you think the inner workings of the AI will be used as evidence in court at all? The entire thing hinges on financial decisions made by Altman and whether they violate the non-profit structure as agreed upon during OpenAIs founding.

That's because the original hybrids were piles of crap that people primarily bought because they wanted to virtue signal.

No, you just add a possible range for the result, or rather, that's what you would do if you had standard samples to manipulate with stearate coated gloves and run test after test against to see maximal and minimal levels of contamination when using said tools. Done correctly, this would let you know that anything above the maximum range is almost certain to be from actual plastics.

Wait till I tell you about the IRS.