There are 538. It's possible to tie with 269 each. Though IIRC the most likely model to get there required Nebraska to do some ratfuckery and change it's one split off district back with the rest of the state.
Great now that's all I'll think about when I hear TJ Maxx.
Generally speaking the bar for the insanity defense isn't even insanity. If he were insane but capable of understanding that beating someone with a hammer was wrong he'd fail to meet the bar. You basically have to have no idea at all what you're doing or that it's wrong, and you have the burden of proving it.
Yeah I'm sure it pushed all the Trump supporters who were about to vote for Harris into rethinking their positions...
Because otherwise the superpowers have zero incentive to participate at all.
It's one of the core principles of fascism. The enemy is at once weak, feeble, and inferior yet simultaneously powerful, cunning, and insidious.
If he has to divulge his divestment it's going to go to 0 before he can sell it all. If he doesn't need to divulge it, it's still going to go close to zero because the market for that stock won't hold if 60% of it hits the market. If he's been able to borrow against it, he'll probably default and leave his lenders holding the bag.
Using the permission to record audio triggers an on-screen indicator that the mic is recording. Someone would probably notice it on 24/7 recording. Someone would have also by now found the constant stream of network traffic to send the audio to be analyzed, because they also aren't doing that on-device.
If he's on any ballots he might well be stuck on them, but nothing stops him from ceasing to campaign and telling people to vote Trump.
Ofc some tiny fraction may still vote for him if they really want to.
Once they get their Russian citizenship any of the Americans that do this should remember to find a US embassy/consulate and renounce their citizenship so they don't get taxed by Uncle Sam.
Last time I disabled an ad blocker to try it on desktop, I was getting scammy looking product ads. On my phone if I browse Shorts (revanced doesn't stop those ads) it's all straight-up financial/health benefits scams.
But the other night I accidentally opened the 1st party YouTube app on my TV instead of Smart Tube Next and the ads were for big brands. So there's probably a different level of desirability based on content type and device type at play.
They get some control but it depends on the content how exactly it works. I think for normal videos they get a say right from the start where the breaks are. But I know one guy who does YT and he live streams and has to clean up every VOD because they just randomly pepper ads all throughout.
On rare occasions YouTube will play exceptionally long videos as ads. When YouTube Red came out I got multiple entire hours long shows as ads (as a "free preview!") I'm pretty sure Ive gotten one of the movies they put up for free viewing as an ad before.
Obviously you can skip after 5 seconds or whatever but they hope to catch someone playing stuff in the background. Probably to increase their crappy view count for those features to sell actual ads later.
She was free from him and sought him out. She drove from Milwaukee to Kenosha, shot him twice in the head, set his house on fire, and stole his car. It was premeditated murder.
The only issue with nationalizing it is that it will be probably even worse for moderation than under Elon. Private enterprises currently enjoy protection for moderation decisions. If it were nationalized any moderator action would run up against the First Amendment directly. Elon could ban Nazis (he doesn't but he could). A government controlled entity cannot.
What happened to the other person?
I've noticed that this happens a lot. It's "what poll?" "this poll" and then all of a sudden some other person jumps in with a new line of questioning.
I have no clue. That's kind of a fundamental part of this format of social media. Multiple people can converse with different viewpoints.
I absolutely refuse to accept the logic that it would have been better to have a month of infighting about who the candidate should be, as opposed to unifying behind a single strong candidate who was leading in the polls. Who would you rather have had?
I don't think it would've been good either. Like I said:
I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote.
I would've preferred this whole mess have been avoided so there could have been actual primary during the normal primary timeframe. Maybe Harris would've came out on top, maybe not. Without any campaigning I'm not going to take any of the "literally anyone besides who is actually running" polls from the primary season seriously.
The parties are private entities and can set whatever rules they like for selecting a nominee. That said, this was technically still the same representative democratic process. Voters selected the delegates (which are bound on the first round voting only), but Biden dropped out and released his delegates to vote whichever way they wanted.
Certainly I would've preferred for Biden to drop out last year and have had a full primary. But you can't make someone accept the nomination when they don't want it, and there are rules and a process for the already selected delegates to vote for someone else.
I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote. But I'm not sure polls that are that hypothetical are worth very much when it wasn't a fully serious primary but more a rubber stamp on the incumbent.
If Biden would have decided not to run last year and let there be a full primary those polls don't really convince me that Harris would have been the nominee. (For one thing there would have been actually campaigns by her and by alternatives.)
After the Biden debate they just stopped talking essentially and it made it all look polished. Now that Harris is in they suddenly have to actively campaign again and against someone competent, so they're crumbling.