Lyft has exactly the same policy.
Rideshare apps charge you something even if you cancel the ride for whatever reason, because the driver has already taken time getting to you (and passed up other rides). If they didn't, groups of people could order multiple rides, take the first to arrive, and cancel the rest, having wasted the time & labor of all the other drivers. It's not a new policy, and not related to masking.
This is probably a little confusing because in the United States “liberal” often means “on the political left,” but that’s not what it means to political philosophers, political scientists, and in much of the rest of the world. (In the same way “democrat” can just mean someone who supports democracy, not necessarily a member of the U.S. Democratic Party.).
In the broad political philosophy sense, “liberal values” means things like human rights, free speech & press, democratic government, religious toleration, freedom of trade & movement, etc. In other words, the values of liberal democracies like the United States. It doesn’t mean “the values of the people who are called liberals in the context of U.S. politics, where liberal is understood as contrasting with conservative.”
They’re not going to have a hard time shrugging it off; they’re going to focus on this part:
The group does not allege the ballots delivered by couriers were fraudulent. Nonetheless, lawful ballots delivered by third-parties to drop boxes would run afoul of Georgia’s law,
Common sense says a group that was willing to break election law by continuing to ballot harvest after Georgia banned it in 2019 would also be willing to break election law in other ways—like faking or altering ballots. But as far as the legal system is concerned, it’s not proof any of the harvested ballots were invalid, even if you could figure out which of the ballots in any particular dropbox were the harvested ones, amid all the ballots dropped off lawfully by individual voters.
At this point Georgia state officials have doubled down so hard on everything being just fine that you can bet this is the line they’re going to take: “We’ll prosecute whoever did this unlawful ballot harvesting, but the actual ballots were legal; nothing to see here!” And the folks who don’t want to believe there was massive fraud will choose to accept that.
Unfortunately, a letter from a minority of state legislators has no more legal significance than a letter from your Aunt Millie. It didn’t change the fact that Pence had a formally certified slate of electors from PA in front of him.
How is “overturning the election” more palatable or less offensive? It sounds a lot more offensive to most people.
Where are people getting this bizarre notion? That’s not what it says at all. It says that occupying forces in a territory must continue to adhere to the Geneva Conventions rules that apply during wartime for a year following the end of military conflict. It says nothing about this weird idea of a one-year time limit before an illegitimate government can be removed.
If folks are having trouble understanding this, it’s not because you’re “not so bright”—It’s because this made-up nonsense has nothing to do with the text of the manual.
There’s no such rule as this. The Constitution says that the president has to take the oath “before” entering office, and that the term of the previous executive ends at noon. There’s no requirement anywhere that the oath be sworn exactly at noon, and it would be incredibly dumb if there were such a requirement.
That’s not what this shows.
This just shows that if people with antibodies get infected, they are more likely to be infected with antibody resistant strains. Which is what you’d expect. It doesn’t mean they’re more succeptible to those strains, it means they’re less succeptible to the strain that isn’t resistant.
No, they have due process rights based on federal statute. It’s a little weird that, because a lawyer said something you didn’t understand, your first assumption is that she’s a fool who needs basic legal concepts explained to her by somebody with no legal education.
She’s not an idiot; you misunderstood what she was saying. Obviously an attorney understands that everyone has 5th Amendment due process rights. Federal civil sevants ALSO have additional due process rights related to their employment, which can make it difficult to fire them. So she was correct; federal employees are “in a privileged position” relative to most other workers.
It doesn’t include the Carter Page warrant. The Woods files for those applications are discussed at length in the IG’s Crossfire Hurricane report.
It say "on surfaces" not "floating around in air." It says "strong UV rays of summer," not "all sunlight of any kind." And it says "can kill" not "instantaneously kills the second they leave a human body." This doesn't seem like a very hard puzzle.
Nothing. The Arizona AG is “looking into it.” In a few months he’ll announce that, while many of the findings were “concerning,” they weren’t able to find any particular individual who they can prove committed a specific crime.
That's their mobile site. It's what you normally get routed to if you try to visit the site from a mobile browser.
Two things are going on: (1) People are reporting problems because sites that rely on parts of Facebook's infrastructure (like identity authentication) aren't working normally (2) With Facebook's own very large DNS resolvers offline, other resolvers are getting massive traffic spikes (Cloudflare noted a 30x jump) as clients keep looking for FB/Insta/WA & failing. Smaller ones are getting jammed up by it. https://blog.cloudflare.com/october-2021-facebook-outage/
None of these are really "Internet outages," and they're side-effects of FB being abruptly offline, not a sign of systems independently going down simultaneously.
Those aren't "Internet outages," they're Website outages, or rather, reported problems with Websites. Facebook provides the identity infrastructure for tons of other sites; if their network is inaccessible, it could easily create problems for people trying to access other sites, but that's not necessarily indicative of Internet connectivity itself being down.
That’s not what that document says. It doesn’t say PCR is unreliable; it says it would be better to use newer tests that also detect stuff other than COVID.
This is a court ruling from a year ago that for some weird reason they're choosing to report as though it's new?
This ruling is from over a year ago. Why are they writing it up now?
It seems a little ugly to be jumping on this woman's personal tragedy when nobody here has the slightest idea why the child died.
Here's the thing: The way most bills are written, "reading the bill" doesn't necessarily tell you what it does. Often it's a lot of "in section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, delete phrase X and insert sentence Y." And if you look up section 5(b) of 18 USC 2510, you probably still have to look up a bunch of other statutory definitions, regulations, and even court rulings to figure out what the practical effect of the new language is. Reading a summary from a staffer who knows the particular area of law really well is usually going to be a lot more informative than "reading the bill." As long as the staffer knows their stuff, the summary will tell you in a minute what it would take an hour to figure out if you had to sit there and do all the cross-referencing yourself. So I don't necessarily blame them for doing that.
This isn't accurate—not anymore, at least. Biden's EO required it for all federal executive branch employees. Pfizer required vaccination or weekly testing back in August. Moderna is requiring all employees to be vaccinated by October 1: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/covid-19-vaccination-requirement-all-workers-us
As far as I can tell, the WHO is the only employer that's correctly on that list.
I mean, if you want research favorable to the vaccines, you can find it…
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Well, yeah. When someone’s convicted of a crime, they don’t get to walk around free for however many years it takes for the appeal to work its way through the courts. They start serving the sentence and then get freed if the appeal succeds.