Supporting Ukraine IS anti-war.
It’s a war of aggression and the fastest and ONLY way to stop such a war is to stop the aggressor. Appeasement simply allows the aggressor to continue perpetuating or expanding their war aims.
The waste is trickling arms to them instead of surging it. We need decisive Ukrainian victory to spare the lives of Ukrainians and Russians from Putin’s war.
All of them intend to vote for Trump in November, regardless of legal court findings, if they have any chance to vote form him, through legal means or otherwise they will all do it.
No, it explicitly does not work that way. If you share a game to another family member, and that family member plays that game, you are not allowed to play any other game at all on steam.
“A Steam library can only be used by one user at a time to play one game at a time. The same is true if that library is being accessed by another user via Family Sharing.”
I buy all my games on Epic Games Launcher becomes it has less DRM than steam. If you have kids, they can’t play 2 completely different games on two different computers.
It’s like your kid not being able to play Mario kart on her switch because her brother is playing Halo on Xbox in another room. Steam doesn’t support that. Epic games doesn’t have a problem with you having 2 different games being played on 2 different computers, so I buy my games there whenever I have the choice because it’s the more consumer-friendly platform.
Seems like a good thing. Helps lead towards a more sympathetic and symbiotic relationship and a stepping stone to peaceful relations between the two countries. Anything that gets them further from a hostile invasion is a step in the right direction.
It’s about ego. The boss doesn’t know how to make the company perform better, they’re all out of ideas. They have to change something to make it look like they’re doing something, so RTO is the low hanging fruit.
There’s really no more justification needed than that. Looking at practical benefits to explain RTO pushes won’t get you answers because the practical benefits are so slim and conditional relative to the strain it creates.
It’s all about ego. They self-identity as the hardcore alpha boss that deserves high pay because they “earn” it. So to massage that ego, they go into the office even though they dont need to, and are meeting with nobody there. It’s pointless but it feeds their ego.
So they feel alone at the office…and in that worldview they are hardworking (an assumed condition), and nobody else is there, therefore everyone else is not hardworking (regardless of how much work they’re actually doing).
In the current state people can take classes on say Zoom, formulate a question, and then type it into Google, which pulls up an LLM-generated search result from Baird.
Is there profit in generating an LLM application on a much narrower set of training data to sell it as a pay-service competitor to an ostensibly free alternative? It would need to pretty significantly more efficient or effective than the free alternative. I don’t question the usefulness of the technology since it’s already in-use, just the business case feasibility amidst the competitive environment.
Yeah, when the court and the law lacks objectivity or ethics, this sort of thing happens. That’s why a functional court and rule of law is needed to provide an orderly pressure release valve for accumulated injustices.
He’s not paying 1billion for a single defamation case. For one thing that’s the sum of multiple cases against him, and the more significant thing is that he lost because he did not fight it through the legal process and got a default judgement entered against him, and the most significant thing is that this amount is awarded due to punitive damages.
The amount is not simply meant to compensate the aggrieved party. That would have been capped to a much smaller amount. However because of a continuous series of intentional deceit and fraudulent actions during the lawsuit itself, punitive damages were awarded instead, where the point is to set an example against such behavior in court cases.
That extra punishment is for the benefit of the legal system rather than the aggrieved, it was something he could have simply avoided by just fighting the court case through the normal legal process. He would have simply lost and would only have had to pay a fraction of that amount.
The point of the ability to punish subversion of the legal process is that otherwise, no legal consequence for ignoring the court, would mean that anyone could completely ignore the legal process (which is what he was attempting to do).