andrewta

joined 2 years ago
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

So which countries are on the list?

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It’s a good question. I honestly don’t have an answer. If a person wakes up one day and says hey, that’s what I want to do. Who are we to judge it?

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You just described how life works. You have to do it the hard way first so that you appreciate it when you get it easier way.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I’m going to touch on two items : one is the drivers license, I personally believe it should be a lot harder to get a drivers license than what it is in the United States. I think it’s way too easy. I’ve been driving for over 30 years now and the crazy and stupid stuff I’ve seen yeah it should be harder to get a drivers license. Medical exam for drivers license , I think it’s a good idea.

The second one that I’m going to touch on is if a doctor is literally telling you to seek help it might be a good idea to seek help.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Hey look, our Social Security is about to be becoming insolvent. The post office has got serious financial problems. I have an idea let’s spend $1.5 trillion extra on the military.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait is this the guy who played video games and there are some YouTube videos of him? (The guy in the story is that guy?)

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Honestly, I’m impressed by the Responses they are actually quite respectful and how people are responding. I was fully expecting some serious hate coming in.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thanks for the information.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

A good attorney/a smart attorney is going to directly ask their client if they actually did it. There is 0% chance you can really defend your client if you don’t know if they did it or not. Because if you don’t know if they did , that means you also won’t have access to all of the information that the other side will have. And then you can pretty much guarantee a failure. By failure, I mean, having the Defendant wind up in jail.

And yes, I know the old statement of every pedophile should be in jail in every rapist should be in jail. But from the defense attorneys point of view, if your client winds up in prison, then you failed. You get too many fails and nobody’s gonna hire you for defense. Even the people are actually innocent will not hire you.

Now I do understand the intent of the original posters comment of why would somebody want to defend somebody who admits they raped or killed.? As you said, everybody is the right to a presumption of innocence. Because you don’t push back on the argument in every case, what will happen is you’ll wind up with innocent people in prison. What it does it make sure that the prosecution when they come to the courtroom, hopefully has their act together. And is fully prepared. If you cut corners on one case you’re probably going to cut corners on another case. This just ensures the system functions.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

never heard of this but based on the replies i should look into it.

 

the only time that alimony should be allowed is if:

in a scenario like this: john and lisa got married. then they get a divorce. john was ordered to pay X dollar amount to lisa to split up the financial assets. but John didn't have the X dollar amount as a lump sum payment. then the alimony would be set up to allow john to pay over time until X amount was transferred. ( an example : it might be most of the money is tied up in a long term investment and it would be financially stupid to end the long term investment early.. so a payment plan might be set up so lisa gets some of the profits over a period of time) maybe even have it be the X dollar amount plus some interest because she has to wait for the cash. obviously lisa and john would have to agree to the pay over time scenario and if they can't agree with what to do then the judge would decide for them.

but no one should ever have to keep paying a person after they are divorced. (other then the above situation). it only creates an incentive for a person to get a divorce. get alimony and the move in with another partner but refuse to get married. now she is getting money from the ex spouse but is also getting benefit of living with someone else. it just encourages bad behaviour.

when the marriage ends that's it . it ends. what's yours before the marriage is yours . what's gained during the marriage is split. then what is gained after the marriage is yours. the other half shouldn't get access to what is yours after the marriage. it makes no sense.

i do not care if you were a stay at home spouse. (a man can be a stay at home spouse the same as a wife can be a stay at home spouse) . i do not care. you get a lump sum pay out of the assets at the end of the marriage. figure it out after that. go get a damn job. why is someone allowed to live off of another person after a marriage has ended?

to add to this: what a person entered the marriage with is what they should get by default.

ex: lisa had 250,000 is cash when she entered the marriage. john had 75,000 in cash when he entered the marriage. when the divorce happens the first thing that should happen is lisa should get 250,000 in cash and john should get 75,000 in cash. that is what they entered with. then the assets gained during the marriage is what should be split. if you split up the 250,000 and the 75,000 then you are going to a point before the marriage and that makes no sense. so what happens if they spent all the money gained during the marriage and then some of the money from before the marriage? (in other words they went negative from where they were before the marriage)

simple: what ever percent of the pre marriage net worth was spent then that is the percent that each party loses of the 250,000 and 75,000 . i would hope that your net worth went up while married. it shouldn't have gone down unless there was a serious health crisis / long time loss of work on both people / serious mismanagement of the finances. but they both lose an equal percent of their pre-marriage cash.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this has to be the dumbest thing i've read today.

it should be mentioned that i am not attacking you (the person who said they had to pay child support) ... i'm attacking a system that would allow this. what in the taco bell shitting hell was going through a persons head when they wrote that law?

 

linux mint web app at 2 minutes 46 seconds

please explain it to me like i'm 5 because i just don't really understand the difference. if there really is a difference.

 

Sorry, ran out of character characters in the title

Is OpenAI sending the information to persona for processing the information, or is persona sending information to OpenAI for processing? I’m confused on the information in the video.

https://youtu.be/lgou6IMJ7Ks

The link is to the YouTube video in question. It has to do too with the company of persona and their massive data leak. You might have heard of discord having so many accounts getting their info leaked. It’s really persona that got their info leaked.

 

Want me to stop shopping at your company? Make a crappy rewards program

 

Edit: I received several good answers. I thank you for the information. I will probably self host.

 

Solved: it was !shittyasklemmy@lemmy.ml

view more: next ›