I just went through training last week and registered with the State of AZ for collecting signatures. There are a ton of ways to accidentally invalidate signatures even if people wanted to sign without being lied to. Those petitions often need almost twice the minimum signatures simply to get past that threshold since so many are invalidated.

First, only registered voters can sign. Each page of signatures is for a specific county and the signature must be on a page for the county where they are registered to vote, not necessarily where the signature is made. A misspelled address will invalidate a signature. Writing or signing outside the boxes will invalidate a signature. And the paperwork needs to be filled out correctly by the collector, or the entire page of signatures is useless. Every page has the ID of the registered petition collector, and if they are with a group, that is tied to the specific group and petition.

I’m sure Nebraska has similar requirements. Some states have even thrown away entire groups of signatures for similar issues like the article. If a collection group is confirmed to have been lying to voters about the petition, all of their collected signatures can be tossed out.

Are these actually counterfeit, or just the extra produced past what is contractually required at the original factory?

Many Chinese factories will be contracted for say 18 hours of production, but stay open for 24 hours, and the extra is sold on the grey market. Or the product that doesn’t make it through contracted quality control will be sent to the grey market.

I can’t believe the actual market for these is large enough to actually justify a second factory spitting out duplicates when the original factory can just make extra beyond what’s contracted. More likely the original factory made like 5,000 pairs instead of the 1,000 Trump sold officially, and those are on the grey market as “counterfeits” despite being exactly the same, just not official.

I think it’s probably because she generally wasn’t publicly political during her husband’s Presidency, or after. She did what was expected of the First Lady, didn’t do anything too controversial, and that was about it. And there’s likely a lot of people that want Obama again, but he cannot run, but if she’s there obviously his counsel would be as well.

That’s an entirely different situation voters would be responding to, and they would only be doing it because they would have no other option. Even then, it 100% would end up being Kamala Harris and a running mate they scramble to find, only because they need the name recognition. Those are totally different circumstances, extremely obvious and avoidable, but still technically not under their direct control like the entire cycle up to now.

What we have now is the party’s unwillingness to accept that Biden needed to be told not to run again, so we could get a real primary and voters actually deciding. They are only now starting to question the shitty decision when it’s becoming glaringly obvious that an 80+ year old shouldn’t be running again and younger blood is needed.

The party is run by the old fucks though, and they don’t want to give up what they have to the younger generations. Look at AOC’s seat, it’s the perfect encapsulation of the DNC’s belief that the old fucks should be running everything.

AOC handily beat Joseph Crowley in the primary with 57% of the vote (against the #3 Dem at the time, a 20 year Congressional veteran, it’s unprecedented), and he still refused to drop out. Instead he stayed on the ballot under a third party where he again lost, with only 7% of the vote. 7% despite being the “safe” politician, with 20 years experience, #3 in the party, the incumbent with all the name recognition in the world, being challenged by an upstart young female “bartender”. The old fucks don’t want to give it up, and will do anything to prevent that, even losing the election entirely to the Republicans, because they aren’t doing it for the country, they’re running for themselves.

There are too many sexist voters that would never vote for a woman. Look at Hilary, even ignoring how unlikeable she could be, a ton of people were very vocal about not voting for her only because she was female, including other women.

Besides, I’m fairly certain Kamala is making a lot of the current decisions anyway. Joe and her have been together a lot more than other VPs and Presidents in the past.

Of course not, they learned from another state (Utah I think) that didn’t make an exception for the Bible.

But I can’t get an Orange Julius online.

Uber Eats, Door Dash, Grubhub, etc. all exist for this exact type of purchase.

Although you will pay for the convenience, as opposed to it being cheaper like most other products since the physical store is still involved.

The time to switch candidates was 6-8 months ago. It’s too late at this point, at least for US politics. Too many “undecided” voters seem to think they need a year to get to know a candidate.

If they were to switch from Biden, Trump would win in a landslide without having to say a damned thing or remind anyone he existed between now and then.

This country is fucked.

The rule is there to prevent them from releasing info the NTSB hasn’t done a full analysis on, but that’s not the case here. However, the info was already made public by the NTSB, to the Senate nonetheless.

In what world does it make sense that Boeing can’t repeat the same thing when talking about it? Boeing isn’t even allowed to repeat what the NTSB as publicly said? That’s insane.

A judge would throw this out of court if it came before them, as a ridiculous waste of the court’s time.

deleted by creator

This, plus just how egregious was it?

No one is wanting to read these messages like they’re 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that. Well, there’s probably somebody but that’s not why most want to see it. Clearly it was not bad enough to get the police involved at the time, so we’re talking less than To Catch A Predator.

Ignoring the age difference for a second, because that part is not relevant to my specific point here… What some people consider flirty, others consider creepy. On a similar note, the same comment coming from a person someone considers attractive and from someone they find ugly often has a completely different reaction.

Doc says that it crossed a line, that’s not under debate by anyone at this point. He says there were no pictures, etc. exchanged, just messages and there was no intent to meet up or anything like that. On the other side one of the original tweets claimed they were sexting. Peoples definitions of sexting can vary dramatically as well.

So clearly the messages went over the line of being inappropriate, no argument there from anyone paying attention, but how far over that line was it? Were they truly explicit messages, or just inappropriate within the context of a 35 year old talking to a minor?

Thank you.

At this point I’m more angry at article writers that don’t include screenshots of the things they’re writing articles about than I am at the issues they’re writing about.

A decent amount of the time once the issue is in a bit of context, my reaction is vastly different than what the writer was trying to get me to feel.

I wish there was a way to easily mark or denote articles written by certain authors when loading a page (especially across sites since many of these people write for multiple places) so I don’t waste my time reading things from people I’ve found to have irresponsible or questionable reporting.

Ah see I stopped playing or even looking at it when the NYT bought it. At the time, that was the assumption since their other games are behind the paywall.

Instead, loading it up right now, it just looks like they have insanely large ads taking over 1/3 of the vertical space on lyn1440p monitor and forcing me to scroll to even see the full on screen keyboard.

Pretty shit UX there, as expected from every news site in the modern age.

How long until the New York Times buys it out to put behind their paywall like Wordle?

Mountain Dew was made to cover up the flavor of low quality moonshine.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it could hide Round Up.

Well, there are actually 3 private address ranges in IPv4.
10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255 (10.0.0.0/8)
172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255 (172.16.0.0/12)
192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255 (192.168.0.0/16)

For IPv6 the rough equivalent is a Unique Local Address.
fc00::/7

Only real world advantage of IPv6:

::1 vs 127.0.0.1

It’s an officially recognized spec, so Apple will ignore it as long as they can. Until they can find a way to make money from it or spin marketing as if it’s some miraculous new invention of theirs, for something that should just be how it’s done.

This exactly.

The fact the contractor is paying means somewhere along the line of subcontracting someone typed it in wrong. The contractor likely aren’t the ones making the sign, and there may even be another level of subcontractors each getting more specialized in there if the main contract is for the entire State.

Actually, the inventor of the Keurig coffee pod system, John Sylvan, sold his ownership of the product for $50,000 in 1997. 7 years after founding the company and before single-serve coffee really took off.