Even if it was true, it would be irrelevant.

You can't deny any responsibility for accidents if you decline to repair or replace a bridge that busts in the exact same way every year.

Cities are liable if they get reports of potholes or dead trees and don't fix them before someone gets hurt.

I am not, in fact, handing it to her, but she can write.

earlier today I went to some thermal baths in Budapest and I had such a nice time and I went to get dressed feeling so content and relaxed then on the way out I realised I'd missed a whole wing of fancier baths and I got really annoyed, and hear me out: what if consumer sentiment is just that now

What is your objective in asking that question and how is it relevant to the preceding thread?

Given how little you clearly know on this topic, do you think the wiser cause of action is to try to outwit the actual economists who have taken time to respond to you, or to take the opportunity to learn?

Yes, it literally is. It's the measure used to define inflation. When people in the US say "inflation is up four percent" they are referring to the CPI.

www.oecd.org/en/data/indi...

We're at the point where believing in Jewish space lasers *sincerely* is leading people to better - scratch that - to fewer bad places than believing in Haitian refugees eating the pets of white families *insincerely*.

BREAKING: Following the American threat of an “Avignon Papacy,” Robert Kennedy has begun a Diet of Worms

How much of this is Stanford?

I made that realization while reading Into the Wild. This old guy who loved Chris decided to become an "atheist" because he was so mad at God for Chris's death.

So many things made so much more sense in that moment.

Speaking of put ons, I like how he shot this in front of a messy wood pile instead of at his mailbox.

Now I'm curious to see the front of his house.

We decided everyone gets an education and access to free books.

So there’s no regime change, we lift all sanctions against them going back decades, they retain missile and drone capabilities, they control the strait and can charge tolls, and keep their enriched uranium. So much for “unconditional surrender.”

In 2024, we watched news media lead a concerted and sustained effort to end Bidens presidency *and it worked.* If they wanted to, Donald Trumps fitness for office and mental state could be all they talk about going forward. They arent doing so bc they dont see anything theyre interested in changing.

But if someone points a gun at you or another you should assume they mean to use it. Even if you don't REALLY think they would. The severity of the threat demands to be taken literally.

I think it's bad for the President to threaten to annihilate an entire culture and i do not think you are being alarmist if you take his threats seriously and literally.

I definitely like my hotties to bear some resemblance to the human bodies that have rocked my world.

I would totally read a coming of age book about a boy in the 1930s trying to make sense of the world and his dad, DJT. Like, actually DJT. A cross between F Scott Fitzgerald, Neil Simon and Henry Miller.

I bet Joyce Carol Oats could write it.

Mary Wollstonecraft warned you that women who are only objects of pity and love, due to their “fascinating graces,” their “soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, [and] delicacy of sentiment” — in a word, due to their weakness (and not strength) — “will soon become objects of contempt.”

Maybe using "richness" isn't the most helpful metric.

These guys really have no clue - I mean none - that women can be motivated by status, deference and power and will seeth just as much as any ambitious man when disrespected and demeaned.

My understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected - is that at the time of passage, tribal members were excluded for jurisdiction and this conventional interpretation required the 1924 law.

Not expressly by name but it was mostly understood and expressly confirmed later.

Go to a community seder or ask around.

One year, I mentioned to a friend on an elevator that I couldn't travel to my family seder. A coworker I didn't know well immediately invited me to his. People want you to celebrate.

You don't have to make a feast, the plate has enough for a meal.

The state can take a newborn from a drug addled undocumented immigrant and put her up for adoption, eventually, but they cannot do that to a baby with tribal ties, let alone membership. They can take the baby, but can't place her w/ non-natives (usually).

Which baby is more subject to US law?

Native Americans have certain legal protections and exemptions in certain US courts of law, whereas visitors and immigrants don't; at least not that benefit them.

Very thorny for anyone arguing babies of immigrants aren't subject TO vs subject OF. That's how I read it, anyway, but I'm no expert.

It's pretty good at assembling and organizing information from material it's given, but it reverts to bragadocious corp speak and clunky sentence structure.

It did very well at creating a training course using publicly available videos and sources.

In my experience, AI can't help better-than-average writers, although it's a pretty good editor. It's also terrible for anyone who already knows what the final product should be, at least if each project is novel.

We have to show we're using it at work, but it costs me more time on writing tasks.

At the time of 14th amendment and since, it was understood that phrase *subject to jurisdiction" applied to diplomats whose kids WERE subject and Native Americans whose kids WERE NOT.

Otherwise, it's understood everyone on US soil IS subject to US jurisdiction, e.g., US can enforce laws on them.

Birthright citizens are born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. Native Americans aren't always subject & have other rights. Kids of Americans in consulates ARE subject to US.

If 14 applies to Native Americans, they theoretically lose sovereignty because they're subject to US by definition.