Oh, things were running slow, so you decided to reboot? Cool, let me also run 12 BIOS updates while we're at it.
-mine
13.03.2026 13:43
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Oh, things were running slow, so you decided to reboot? Cool, let me also run 12 BIOS updates while we're at it.
-mine
Just let John Roberts cook, bro
Not saying they aren't censoring, but apparently there are more widespread issues with TikTok today, so it may be a bit early to say for sure.
www.theverge.com/news/867625/...
Ah yes, working 19 hours a day sounds reasonable.
Even then, only some of them are against it.
Something is broken this morning with the filtering. The gmail subreddit has tons of the same complaint.
my 4 year old decided this morning was a great time for total meltdown mode for no obvious reason. color me jealous.
I use the Lexis version and treat it like I would a first year associate or law clerk. It's great at getting me started on researching issues I'm less familiar with, and then I can jump into Boolean searches once I've got a basic summary of the topic.
Gonna go out on a limb and say the lawyers are not the ones writing these posts.
god i hope so
Same. 4-6 seemed to be the general guidance.
We've had a pretty good fall here in Atlanta this year, ngl
idk man its not like the DOJ is coming after him
I think this is exactly right.
Is he...admitting that the shutdown is bad for Republicans?
Don't leave GA out of the party 🎉
They vote on whether our power company can raise rates. For which they've been a rubber stamp for years.
We love to see it.
Modern classic, for sure.
Way too optimistic.
Yeah I've been pretty willing to pay the $20/mo, even though I probably don't use it as much as I should at that price. $30 is making me seriously consider cancelling for the first time.
At that price it gets really hard to justify a subscription over full purchases.
Yes. 100%.
This is fair. On a case by case basis, I think it's totally fair to have this position. It's taking this position on a general basis that I find problematic.
Ok. But so many of the incumbents are...not impressive lately. So this sort of generalized statement seems unhelpful at best.
If you want to make a statement about a particular candidate or race, go for it. But this broad statement in support of seemingly ineffective incumbents kinda sucks.
Which progressive are you concerned is going to lose to the Republican candidate, exactly?
I'm curious what the exception to the rule looks like. How do they cite it when internal cites or quotes or whatever have *not* been omitted?
True. But also notable that he started somewhat higher this time too.
