It goes beyond that. Some of the statements were made while in office, but the judge ruled that those particular statements weren't protected either.
Colleges give preference to legacies because the admissions department is judged by its yield (the percentage of accepted applicants who actually enroll), and legacy applicants are more likely to enroll if accepted.
It's not necessarily related to being rich. A legacy is about as likely to be wealthy as other students at the school, because after all their parents were also students at that school.
Another important reason is that colleges rely on alumni donors, and alumni are less likely to donate if their children are not accepted.
This is exactly right. There have been various interviews with college admissions directors over the past year, and they pretty much all said the same thing. To paraphrase, "We expect that AA will be struck down. If we can't directly ask about race on the application, then we will achieve the same result by indirect means".
AA opponents mistakenly believe that colleges will now be forced to consider only grades and test scores. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's the ocean depths, not the surface of the sun.
Gas is compressible. So if you stepped into the water without any protection at extreme depth, every gas-containing part of your body would be crushed. That includes your nose, mouth, ears, throat, lungs, bowels, and most of the bones of your face.
Liquids are not very compressible. So the liquid parts of your body, like your eyes, brains, blood, and limbs, would not be affected very much. Maybe they would shrink almost imperceptibly. The same is true of the bones not in your face.
The final result would be a an oddly-smushed looking corpse, not a cloud of vapor.
Incidentally, this is why deep sea divers can swim at depth. They breathe very high pressure gas into their gas-containing parts, which thus remain inflated despite the pressure of the water.
Rich people die all the time, in hospitals. Nobody pays much attention.
The reason an imploding sub is getting attention is that sub implosions don't happen every day. There were no millionaires aboard the Kursk, but everybody was talking about it after it imploded.
Tragedies on private subs are even more rare. When non-millionaire Kim Wall was murdered aboard the Nautilus, it got plenty of attention even though plenty of other people were murdered that day.
I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?
So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.
Which we means we know the hull wasn't made of cotton candy, we know it wasn't propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn't controlled by a device that stops working in water.
We know for a fact that wifi signal was not supposed to travel through the water, because the sub successfully reached Titanic several times before it was destroyed.
If someone had designed the sub in the bizarre way that you suggested, then it would never have completed a single mission.
We know for a fact that wifi signal was not supposed to travel through the water, because the sub successfully reached Titanic several times before it was destroyed.
If someone had designed the sub in the bizarre way that you suggested, then it would never have completed a single mission.
The article was rewritten. Note that the linked url is still:
I think it's pretty simple.
-
Wagner and the Russian Army are competing for increasingly limited supplies in Ukraine.
-
This led Prigozhin to complain publicly about the Russian Ministry of Defense.
-
In response, Putin was planning to subordinate Wagner to the Russian Army.
Subordination would limit Prigozhin's power and also reduce or eliminate his personal source of income. Which basically forced the events playing out today.
Whatever that rule is, I bet the mods at /r/interestingasfuck are ready to enforce it.
If you are a simulation, then your choice doesn't matter. You will never get any real benefit from the boxes. It's like saying, "there is also a finite possibility that the machine is lying and all the boxes are empty". In which case, the choice is again irrelevant.
Situations in which your choice doesn't matter are not worth considering. Only the remaining possibility, that you are not a simulation and the machine is not lying, is worth considering.
But if it's true that the machine can perfectly predict what you will choose, then by definition your choice will be the same its prediction. In which case, you should choose one box.
Regardless of whether the machine is right, if you don't believe it can perfectly predict what you'll do then taking both boxes is always better than just one.
If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.
It's much easier if you reframe the problem:
Someone says they've built a machine that can perfectly predict what you will do. Do you believe them?
If so, take one box.
If not, take both boxes.
If set up properly, Mastodon can pull in Lemmy and Kbin posts and comments. What is Mastodon trying to be?
The answer in both cases: it depends on how you set them up.
It was a private message. It's not going to be actionable as defamation.
I agree about logging IP addresses or emails.
But I am not so sure that usernames or nicknames are necessarily identifiers. For example, if someone posts as "IamtherealTomHanks", you can't actually identify who they are.