You should open an issue with detailed examples including location so they can fix it
Personally I don’t care at all if someone steals my Lemmy account so I don’t bother with 2FA. I only enable 2FA for things that matter
You have to be careful when looking at crosstabs. 600 is the total sample size. How many of those were black?
The most logical explanation is (and always has been) a SS agent accidentally scratched his ear while he kept trying to stand up.
There’s blood on his hand right after he touches his ear, before he even ducks down
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html
Another one bites the dust?
I’ve seen this mentioned a few times before but never get how it works. How do you even use TikTok as a search engine?
The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans
Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:
It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that:
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
In this case:
The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)
Which is the same as
The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)
—
Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that
not (A and B and C)
is equal to
(not A) and (not B) and (not C)
Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!
lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief
The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:
If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.
If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.
There’s already like seven countries with territorial claims in Antarctica
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
LM741 opamp chips