Writer almost never writes the headline. So, two different people with two different views.
Writer almost never writes the headline. So, two different people with two different views.
in the story, he dried them in the sun.
the story says the pigs who did less work spent the days playing not getting paid and buying food
The version I remember being told had the first little pig just look around and see straw, the second little pig had to go gather sticks from the nearby woods, and the third little pig had to actually make the bricks over days.
When they’re really little, high contrast is more clear and theoretically more interesting. There’s a lot of black and white toys aimed at newborns for that reason.
It’s a consonant. Specifically it’s the voiced palatal approximant represented as ⟨j⟩ in IPA.
Are your pets vaccinated and fixed? Would they have ever chosen that themselves? Do you get their dental work done (something most vets only do under anesthesia because cats hate it so much!)? If you’re responsibly taking care of your pets, you are making choices for them they do not like.
“I could care less” is almost always said sarcastically. A hallmark of sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean. So, a sarcastic “I could care less” implies they could not care less.
In exchange, Microsoft can give them some special access or special keys or some backdoor.
They might be doing this. The thing is, putting something like that in makes so much more likely you’ll accidentally create an exploit for other actors as well. It’s why security experts are so against backdoors. They fundamentally compromise security.
The presented scenario was comparing not forgiving loans to not releasing people for drug convictions. I don’t see how you can say going into debt for an education was a poorer choice than risking a conviction and jail time for weed.
The illegal part is key to it being at least as stupid. A drug conviction can change your life just as surely as student debt.
Doing illegal drugs is at least as dumb a choice as getting into debt to get an education.
If 1/5 of people can’t “correctly” function in society in some specific way, you have to at least wonder if it’s them who is wrong or society.
Ok then switch to streaming. My point was just that just because you have a VHS collection doesn’t mean you can’t get media in another way and still use your VHS collection. And most people would use both while they transitioned. Throwing out all your VHSs for the hot new thing isn’t something a lot of people did. Or throwing out all your DVDs because streaming is a thing. People aren’t restricted to one thing.
Right-wing media often have weird takes about, well, everything. If there’s something negative going on in the economy, they’ll definitely blame democrats even if it makes no sense. And their solutions are just bizarre. Like they boycott products by buying them and then destroying them.
So, I think the question is is there actually evidence people are selling right now because they were told to?
My point is people still used that VHSs. They just also bought DVDs. For most people, you didn’t only use one. I think most people went through a period where they used both.
Because they’re engaging in harmful behaviors and need to be broken up and regulated.
I’m not talking about replacing your VHS collection but buying DVDs in addition. You would still watch both. Maybe buying a DVD player was a barrier. But it wasn’t that you owned VHS.
You don’t pre-emptively punish people not causing harm. That’s a bad way to go.
You don’t need to bring your library. Having your library split between multiple platforms isn’t a big deal and most people do it. You just don’t give them any more money.
People didn’t not buy DVDs because they had a library of VHSs.
What does the name being common in that case get you that individual doesn’t? The only thing I can think of is not having to take the trouble to name it yourself, which is such a minor thing.