False.
Section 3, article 3: SPEAKERS IN HELMETS
The Coach-to-Player system allows a member of the coaching staff in the bench area or the coaches’ booth to communicate to a designated offensive or defensive player with a speaker in his helmet. The communication begins once a game official has signaled a down to be over and is cut off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds or the ball is snapped, whichever occurs first.
The headsets are active between plays, and have one way communication with one player on each side. Typically this is the quarterback on offense and a team captain/play caller on defense. These players wear special helmets typically marked with a green dot on the back.
The refs or other officials cut off communication when the play clock reaches 15 seconds, preventing the kind of real-time communication you suggest.
6'3" 200lbs is about right for a fit male. I imagine her muscularity plus future stuff like diet and augmentation would make that realistic for a female.
waspy
President Biden is Catholic, not Protestant
I'm going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I'm not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.
Again, I'm not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.
If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.
(Note; It's highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)
The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they're worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.
(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)
There are measures to keep "known" domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If "known" means "convicted" or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.
(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it's arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)
I know this is a privacy community, but I'm not sure I'm onboard with the outrage on this particular one. If you rent/lease or go on a payment plan for the device you're using, then it isn't yours, it belongs to the entity you borrowed it from.
If I don't make car payments, the bank can repossess my ride. If I dont pay my mortgage or rent, I can be evicted by my landlord or bank.
If I don't make my phone payment, the company should have recourse to prevent me from using their device.
This could open up the ability for bad actors to disable my device, and I agree that's a horrible prospect. But the idea of a legitimate creditor using this feature to reclaim their property is not something I find shocking.
This hasn't been my (anecdotal) experience, or that of anyone in my network.
The industry is unstable no doubt about that, but we've never had trouble finding better places to land.
IMO if you've been in tech building your skills for a few years, you really shouldn't have trouble finding work. '01 was weird but there was still plenty of work, especially in defense. '08 was scary but turned out to be a great time to join a startup. Sometimes it's a lateral move instead of up, sometimes it requires relocating , but if you've been doing good work and building your professional network you should never have to go back to driving forklifts (unless you choose to).
This is false.
Former employers can answer a narrow set of questions without opening themselves up to liability. Among them:
I'm guessing somewhere between the departure reason and "no, we wouldn't rehire this person" the new employer might have some additional questions for the prospective employee.
Some companies deserve to have you quit without notice, fuck 'em, but they are allowed to report some facts to other HR departments who ask.
What's to stop you from voting multiple times? Or voting as someone else? Or someone else voting as you? That last one actually happened to me during a presidential election in my home state.
I don't think it was part of some deep state plot to steal my vote, I'm betting some distracted volunteer at the polling place accidentally crossed off the wrong name and handed someone else my ballot. But still, it seems to me that if we can give out free IDs (which is a thing in my state) then there's no downside in checking them during voting in person.
Because he's an adult and moved out into his own place?
So.. Child labor?
Tmux with a few custom key bindings is amazing. Kind of a learning curve, but not nearly as difficult as something like Vim.