> there is no one big "subscription that includes everything"
You're right, but the switching cost is super easy, and _most_ of the time, these networks aren't putting out new content that I care that much about, so I've found it easiest to just swap services, keeping one subscription active at a time, and then switching again when I've finished watching everything interesting on the next.
I assume that (like most recipe apps out there) he's just trying to parse the json Recipe schema when it is attached. Most blogs attach them because it helps Google get them indexed.
> that regulation or rule or something that makes it so like a hospital can't open too close to another hospital
You're referring to certificate of need laws, but it's worth pointing out that they're not universal. More than a dozen states have repealed them (or don't have them) and everywhere I've looked, there's strong evidence that their removal has increased healthcare access, which has put downward pressure on cost of service
> Another would be to just, train more doctors!
Bill Clinton placed a cap on GME funding in the 97 Balanced Budget Act, freezing the number of residency slots that the federal government would provide funding for, so this effectively froze the number of residents there could be, which effectively limits the number of doctors possible
That was super helpful. I was assuming from skimming the text description that it was a failed crimp
A lot of people wildly under-crimp things, but marine vessels not only have nuanced wire requirements, but more stringent crimping requirements that the field at large frustratingly refuses to adhere to despite ABYC and other codes insisting on it
The good tools will crimp to the proper pressure and make it obvious when it has happened.
Unfortunately the good tools aren't cheap. Even when they are used, some techs will substitute their own ideas of how a crimp should be made when nobody is watching them.
While the US is still very manual at panel building, Europe is not.
So outside of waiting time, I can go from eplan to "send me precrimped and labeled wires that were cut, crimped, and labeled by machine and automatically tested to spec" because this now exists as a service accessible even to random folks.
This attitude wherein one thinks they can just spend money and offload responsibility is exactly the problem.
Abdicating responsibility to those "good tools" are why shit never gets crimped right. People just crimp away without a care in the world. Don't get me wrong, they're great for speed and when all you're doing it working on brand new stuff that fits perfect. But when you're working on something sketchy you really want the feedback of the older styles of tool that have more direct feedback. They have a place, but you have to know what that place is.
See also: "the low level alarm would go off if it was empty"
If you want to use any public spaces (libraries, community centers, parks) then no, you can't. Virtually every state has a prohibition on the use of public spaces that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or gender
If you wanted to leverage the "private club" exemption per Roberts v Jaycees, then you would be disqualified from using public spaces as well, which -- my wife established a "girls who code" organization and it benefited greatly from the use of both public and lent private spaces, but she could not have done without the ability to use both as it would have been extremely cost prohibitive (and it wasn't in any way profitable anyway)
> Virtually every state has a prohibition on the use of public spaces that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or gender
This ties into a very specific confusion about affinity groups. Specifically, they generally are not exclusionary (in part because it's largely illegal). The only thing preventing boys from participating in a "girls who code" type of event is the boys don't want to go to something with "girls" in the name.
I blearily put this reply to the wrong top-level comment earlier, but ...
That very much depends on the group.
Years ago, my wife founded two chapters of a national organization who did "girls who code" sorts of things. There was (to her) a surprising amount of infighting about how to handle registrations from males. Leadership felt that men should not be allowed to attend, but there were at least a couple of chapter leads (including my wife) who felt that men should be allowed to attend, but where spots were scarce, they should be prioritized to women.
Disregarding the politics of it, there was definitely not a shortage of men who were discouraged from signing up because they were somehow icked out over the name. I'm sure some men were, and I'm sure others probably deferred on the grounds that they didn't want to take spots away from those for whom the mission was intended -- but because the organization was unwilling to publish official guidance for reasons I won't bother to opine on, my wife was routinely in the position of having to explain her attendance policies to men who had signed up
If you were to create a "boys who code" organization and get denied for use of a public space that a "girls who code" org has used, then a) you could sue for use of the space, citing the girls groups' use, and win, or b) you could sue saying that the girls group shouldn't be allowed to use it, and win.
Years ago, my wife founded two chapters of a national organization who did "girls who code" sorts of things. There was (to her) a surprising amount of infighting about how to handle registrations from males. Leadership felt that men should not be allowed to attend, but there were at least a couple of chapter leads (including my wife) who felt that men should be allowed to attend, but where spots were scarce, they should be prioritized to women.
Disregarding the politics of it, there was definitely not a shortage of men who were discouraged from signing up because they were somehow icked out over the name. I'm sure some men were, and I'm sure others probably deferred on the grounds that they didn't want to take spots away from those for whom the mission was intended -- but because the organization was unwilling to publish official guidance for reasons I won't bother to opine on, my wife was routinely in the position of having to explain her attendance policies to men who had signed up
If you assume that Biden had influence on the prosecution, then we should not forget that the original deal posed by the DOJ was for Hunter to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges for which he would have received 2 years probation, and pre-trial diversion on the federal gun charges.
The judge threw this out, but those are pretty generous terms for what penultimately amounted to guilty charges on 6 felonies and 6 misdemeanors (before all charges were pardoned.)
Somewhere I hope there is a third kind of child who neither likes nor dislikes Mr Beast because of his content but who merely recognizes him for what he is, and opts in to the videos they seem likely to be entertained by while opting out of the videos they seem unlikely to be entertained by
His videos are obviously entertaining until you realize (for me it was a post few years ago here) how cruel they are. With likes of Squid Game you realize it is all fake. IMO few more years and YouTube will deplatform or deboost him.
JFK and LBJ systematically leveraged the FCC's obligation to uphold the Fairness Doctrine to weaponize mass-produced complaints against right-leaning radio shows to legally harass them
In 1963 the FCC passed the Cullman Doctrine, which was an attempt to double-down on those efforts by bankrupting those who literally couldn't afford to cover equal time
Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate
Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.
The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director
None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election
The Washington Post is a newspaper that at the time was owned by The Washington Post Company. The Washington Post Company owned the paper and also some television stations that required FCC licensure
One of the stations (WPLG) still operates in Florida, and is (IIRC) an ABC affiliate
>Later in 1963, Henry issued a new legal requirement, the Cullman Doctrine, which stipulated that radio stations that aired paid personal attacks had to give the targets free response airtime.
So to be clear - you think the head of the FCC publicly threatening to revoke a stations license if they don't fire a COMEDIAN they don't like, is the same as the fairness doctrine requiring a station to give free airtime for politicans to respond to baseless political attacks if they are paid for those attacks?
>Nixon used the FCC to threaten the Washington Post with licensure revocation in an attempt to get them to squash coverage of Watergate
And Nixon was impeached...
>Presidents on both sides of recent history have used the might of the government to demand abject censorship on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms.
Facebook and Twitter were caught taking money from nation states to spread lies to cause political strife while hiding the source of both who was spreading the message and who was paying for it. Excuse me if I'm not concerned the government is telling them to stop. While our laws are not directly written to address the issue, they are toeing the line of treason and trying to use Free Speech as an excuse for doing so. Let me guess: you also think it's wrong RT was labeled a foreign actor?
>The prior sitting president attempted to establish a ministry of truth, slated as a new entity intended to reside within the department of homeland security so as to supercharge those efforts, and appointed Nina "I believe I should be allowed to edit other people's tweets" Jankowicz to executive director
Ahh, there we have it. Russian influence on US politics isn't an issue as long as they're supporting your side. The "ministry of truth" is a department appointed with policing and attempting to prevent China and Russia from meddling in our elections. Let me guess: the government is suppressing China and Russia's constitutionally protected first amendment rights?
>None of these are healthy, but the idea that Carr's actions are somehow the result of the modern Supreme Court's actions requires us to ignore all of American history before Trump's second election
It really doesn't, nothing you cited resulted in a lawsuit that landed at the Supreme Court who promptly ignored all precedent to side with the President. Which is exactly what this one has done, and there are people discussing whether or not they think the current Supreme Court would actually side with the constitution or decide there's some reason it's OK for the President to ignore the constitution entirely. The fact you're bending in circles to try to act like the current situation is just more of the same is baffling.
> So to be clear - you think the head of the FCC publicly threatening to revoke a stations license if they don't fire a COMEDIAN they don't like, is the same as the fairness doctrine requiring a station to give free airtime for politicans to respond to baseless political attacks if they are paid for those attacks
I think that a government representative abusing their perceived power to coerce private entities to quell free speech is equivalent to another government representative abusing their perceived power to coerce private entities to quelling free speech, yes.
> Let me guess: you also think it's wrong RT was labeled a foreign actor?
I think it has nothing to do with my argument
> Russian influence on US politics isn't an issue as long as they're supporting your side
Russian influence on US politics is a wide non-sequitur from the subject
> nothing you cited resulted in a lawsuit that landed at the Supreme Court who promptly ignored all precedent to side with the President
Neither has anything you cited. Neither is Carr the President. /shrug
The speech itself may be protected, but it endangers ABC's broadcast license. If ABC knowingly broadcasts a lie the broadcast of that lie causes harms, then it is in violation of FCC's section 73.1217, which specifically exists to thwart against "Broadcast Hoaxes"
In fairness to the provision, I think it's outdated, and I've argued against its relevance and that it seems unlikely to me to stand up in any court that interprets 1A jurisprudence to a modern standard, but the law exists and exists specifically to prevent against broadcast lies.
You're right, but the switching cost is super easy, and _most_ of the time, these networks aren't putting out new content that I care that much about, so I've found it easiest to just swap services, keeping one subscription active at a time, and then switching again when I've finished watching everything interesting on the next.
reply