If anyone were to ask me what I think about manhood, I would assume they were a Trump voter. Don't do this.
SHamblingSHapes
joined 2 years ago
Lemmy bingo card: this will be my first user block!
Soooo, the company owning Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is continuing to operate in Russia because "exiting is not straightforward". Bruh. You're going to lose money in exchange for not supporting a murderous regime. It is straightforward.
Excerpt from linked article:
During a news conference Friday, Lincoln Public Schools superintendent Paul Gausman said Scheich had enrolled by submitting a birth certificate, an out-of-district high school transcript and immunization records.
“All those documents turned out to be fraudulent,” said Gausman.
COVID was just the cherry on top for dropping my aunt. My cousin, who was previously her favorite and who's wedding she fully supported, was suddenly a "gay pervert". I am still baffled by how quickly and thoroughly she became a bigoted nutjob.
Sounds like a rally call to hit the bars. "Queer up, boys, we're going out!"
There are many types of intelligence. I wouldn't want to be the most intelligent across all categories. Something would be seriously broken if that were the case.
What form does the voting take? Does every member get an equal vote?
Gab and Truth Social were always the most mentioned examples until Elon/Twitter/Mastadon. I'm still cautious of communities becoming overrun by Nazis.
I would be surprised if $30/hr is an increase. Since they already serve the food cafeteria style, their waitstaff can handle more tables at once than waitstaff in a more traditional restaurant model. $30/hr in tips in Denver isn't really that much.
It was always more about smoothing out the dead/busy times for me. Don't schedule me if I'm going to sit around doing nothing and not earning tips, but also don't underschedule the busy times leaving me to handle too many tables and losing tips because the quality of my work drops. Maybe a flat $30/he will drive the restaurant to schedule more efficiently.
This one is going to require some poking around at other resources and summaries from legal minds greater than mine. I am baffled by the explanation laid out in this article.
This may be the most direct Catch-22 situation I've seen outside fiction novels, but with shitty stalkers. The stalker can't be convicted unless he's intending to threaten. He can't be considered threatening if he doesn't admit to being threatening. So as long as he says he didn't mean to threaten, despite literally telling the victim to die, he can't be convicted.
It's the one listed in the article that I see in daily life. It also has a reputation of being progressive, with their advocacy for LGBT+ rights and support of Bernie Sanders.