What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn't break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
Murder is with the intention to kill. This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
But they are too lenient on deathly accidents with gross negligence.
10-methoxy-5,6-dipropylundecan-2,3,4,7,8,9-hexone from /u/cakeotic
It's the loss meme somehow.
There is the psychological factor that Windows behaves more like malware with their forced full screen overlays to shove the Edge into your ass. Over and over again. Microsoft doesn't take No for an answer like an abusive partner.
Not quite correct. They didn't start charging for API usage. They banned it and pretended it could be paid for with completely absurd prices nobody could reasonably afford.
Bruh, if you had invested your school lunch money instead of literally eating it and thus draining it down the toilet, you would have been a millionaire by now. Subscribe for more of my finance tips for just $20 a month.
You really need to add Discord to this list as it is soaking up gigantic amounts of information about video games as a forum replacement. One could argue for actual community games like MMO's it is perhaps slightly different, but for the majority it is a huge problem.
These things are ableist. We are reaching the point where AI can solve these much more reliably than a human. As a result the difficulty has to rise and will exclude more and more people which might have problems with "basic" tasks from a neurotypical perspective. Not to speak sometimes there might be multiple solutions depending on language and cultural interpretations.
It is. So where is the police report? She said she was groped on several occasions (which is sexual assault) and quit the job by her own decision, so why not throw the men who groped her under the bus?
I am tired of reading these things. I am absolutely aware these are done in good faith to have some neutral instance to deal with this, but it not the reality. If you are low on money, you are right out or a bit later, if you are an "undesirable" person, you will lose, and if you lack time, energy and mental health going through the paperwork will break the last bit you had and money too.
Dislike the meme, because I fully believe the beehaw decisions have solid, purely technical, grounds.
Please don't defederate. Just have it reserved for actually intentionally malicious or negligent instances.
This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.
As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a "removal" would be required.