Encouraging cleanliness is not the point at all. The point is: "... policing methods that target minor crimes, such as vandalism, loitering, public drinking and fare evasion, help to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness. " Source.

In the specific case that OP is referring to with Giuliani and NYC: "Bratton directed the police to more strictly enforce laws against subway fare evasion, public drinking, public urination, and graffiti."

That's literally what it would have done. "Second Civil War" would be a response to the overthrowing of democracy. If they took the VP and held a gun to the rest of congress to keep Trump in power, then democracy is over at that point. The ensuing civil war would be a fight to restore it.

Just imagine the average reddit, twitter, facebook, and instagram content. Then realize that half of that content is dumber than that. That's half of what these AI models use to learn. The "smarter" half is probably filled with sarcasm, inside jokes, and other types of innuendo that the AI at this stage has no chance of understanding correctly.

Or down a hill or slope. You just end up shooting level and missing your target. It's bizarre.

They came really, really close. Completely failed would have looked much different; e.g. not making it up the steps of the building. In reality, they were this close to taking the VP, and one door away from members of Congress hiding under desks.

This is the same reason that you never touch something that looks like a carrot plant in the wild

That's funny. I was just thinking to myself "Fuck all this mushroom noise. I'll just stick to eating carrots, no way to mistake those for something else." I guess I'll die quickly in the coming apocalypse.

Have you watched any of the presidential debates in the last decade or two? How is this even a question at this point?

I won't watch any more debates until they do this.

Nice. A completely toothless group of people performing a pointless and inconsequential exercise to determine whether someone everyone knows is unethical is, in fact, also unethical for doing this other thing.

-Idiots arguing against student loan forgiveness.

"First fix the issue that impacts ME (loan forgiveness), then later fix the root cause that impacts literally everyone (high tuition). And shit on anyone who doesn't prioritize my loan forgiveness first! Because I signed a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don't feel like I should have to pay it back under the terms I agreed to! Fuck all the students who get loans after me, those who are paying them back as per their loan agreements, and those who chose not to go to college because they knew they couldn't afford the loans. Amirite? Me me me!"

-idiots pretending their selfish cries about getting their loans forgiven equates to liberalism

Loan forgiveness is an important step, but it's not the first or even the most important step. It's very telling where your priories are (and how fake your politics are) if you make forgiving your student loans the first and loudest piece of the actual problem.

Source? And don't link to a Ford article...

Sync

Let's go boys! Time to drop trou, get out your wallet, and pre-order the super platinum edition with a hilarious camo, useless rifle, and the day-1 DLC included.

Homie, you're pretty deep in that hole already. Stop digging.

Which games use Vanguard?

I’m not defending the police here, but

Oh boy, here we go.

could this man have had a heart attack due to the presence of drugs or alcohol in his system, combined with the fact that his heart rate was elevated by resisting arrest

Totally. He could have also died from a brain aneurysm, aliens, a very advanced case of SIDS, or a witch's curse. Or, you know, maybe he died from the whole not being able to breathe thing that was actually happening.

He does not appear to be in good physical condition. I see that his stomach looks a little distended and he sort of waddles as he took steps around the bar area.

He didn't look like he was in great shape? Only fitness buffs and marathon runners with no booze in their systems get to live though being cuffed? Tf is wrong with you.

Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn't solve the problem. It's pulling up the ladder.

You're 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don't take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don't like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.

College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm responding to @Gigan@lemmy.world's original statement of "So 100% of women have been sexually assaulted?". @boogetyboo@aussie.zone then responded with "Every woman I know including myself has?". I simply replied saying that "Everyone I know" is not the same as "100% of women".

If you read all of that, and you're standing by your reply, then it sounds like you're agreeing with me and @Gigan@lemmy.world by stating "Assaulted? No."

But too many have been sexually harassed at least once. I think it was 1 in 3 girls experiences sexual harassment before age 18.

I completely agree with you. But that's not what my comment was about.

Every woman I know including myself has?

Your anecdotal experience doesn't equate to 100% of women.

You don't have to believe anything. It's not a faith based system.

It's also not an anecdote-based system.

Just speak to women and you'll hear how common it is.

Common is not equal to all. OP is doubting the implication that all women have been assaulted.

Actually, I think I did, you just didn’t understand it.

No, you didn't. And the drivel you just wrote still didn't answer the question. At this point it's clear that it's intentional.

The problem with landlords as a class is that they exert complete control over a ‘property’ while having the least use of it.

Tell me you have no idea how property ownership works without telling me you have no idea how property ownership works.

I would really have to agree.

"No you". Nice one. Good luck friend, this back and forth is pointless.

Whose profits? See my post above:

profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord?

If your answer is "anyone and any entity making a profit", then that's about two or three dozen different industries (including banks, insurance agencies, title companies, all kinds of home builders, repair folks, etc.). Regardless of my opinion on that argument, your problem isn't with the landlord, it's with a huge swatch of industries who are all tied to and profit from renting.