Willie

They requested the delay to July, since he is in court for another case in another area. I suppose it was reasonable to grant it. It’d be unfair for someone to not get their right to a trial, even if they were found guilty of a crime in another area.

It’d make more sense to keep him in custody in the meantime though. I mean, that’s what they do for normal people. Right?

Ready for nothing to happen?

Yeah, that’s the internet for you. Anything you want to stay around will vanish someday, and anything you want gone will be here forever.

Come on, they even missed their chance to call it CreateHentAI!

Yeah, you get to pick your cat in Prism.

Steam will do refunds to the payment method used if fewer than 30 days have passed, but after that point, they’ll only refund to Steam Wallet. At least, that’s how it worked last time I checked.

Nope,

I preheat the oven consistently but don’t consistently read terms and conditions or license agreements.

They forced everyone off Origin and onto the EA App.

They still didn’t make a remember password button that works.

I know exactly what she’s thinking from that expression.

How unprofessional.

In an elevator, or I guess a lift, what do the buttons that select floors represent the ground floor with? A ‘G’? A “0”?

Samsung’s clock application did this pretty well, where you don’t even have a reset count button until you press the button that stops the stopwatch from counting.

I’d imagine we’d see insurance invest money into making offers to providers. They’d refer the patient to a health insurance company instead of negotiating, and in exchange they’d get a large one time payout for a successful referral. This would please investors in the providers, because they’d see short term gains, and it’d please the insurance company because patients would be forced to have insurance again. Everyone (with money) wins!

We use 3 of our stove burners, and never touch the other. So for me, I guess one of mine is very lonely.

Can we really handwave away the whole Adam and Eve thing though?

If we do, then what did Jesus die for?

There’s not really any use for them. There are really no tasks they can help a normal person with in their everyday. I guess you could talk to it like it’s a person, but that’s sad, and is probably unhealthy, and you should probs just talk to a real person instead.

Now if you do some specialized tasks, like programming, but aren’t very good, I guess I can see some use for them.

I’m having trouble seeing any uses for them beyond those though.

Well, I never really thought about it until now either. Haha. Though, it was mostly a choice of apathy, since when I’m dead I won’t really care what someone does with them, I only really get to pretend that I will while I’m alive today.

If they’re not charging for my organs that get donated, then that’s pretty cool. I mean, I was given mine for free, so it only makes sense to give them for free when I’m done with them.

Of course, I live in the middle of nowhere, so whether they’ll find someone who can use my stuff before it goes bad is a whole different thing entirely.

It’s good that you were able to find some lungs.

My ID says I am, but I’m not registered anywhere else. Why did I have my ID say it? Because I felt like it that day when I renewed it. That’s literally all there was to it.

Real talk though, I almost don’t think I should be donating my organs. Why should the hospital get for free what they’re going to charge a family hundreds of thousands of dollars for?

While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.