In common commercial english, i would read that as “this merchant will offer to trade any of the books for an amoumt of currency equal to half the book’s cover price plus $1.”
Such vagueness also suggests sufficient informality that the merchant may either accept seperate offers or veto the general rule on a case-by-case basis.
Bail is not money you get back. It’s money that a bail bondsman doesn’t have to fork over if you dont show.
Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don’t have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)
New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.
Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.
So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?
Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?
(edit: shortened url.)
It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.
Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?
The elecrelically semi-literate side, obviously.
1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a “single-vote plurality wins” systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn’t already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.
2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being “a party”. There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.
I mean, isn’t it a usb_c cable that the manufavtuer claims can handle 10 amps of current at once? (which i think may be on the low side)
I think rhe voting age should be the lower of the minimum age to labor or the age of potential conscription less the age of the longest-term official whoss job includes sending people to war.
In the USA, that would put the voting age all the way down to 12. And having both been 12 myself once and having close family who were recently 12, I’m entirely OK with that.
“they” has always been proper, it just used to be incorrectly taught agaist like split infinitives and ending a sentence with a proposition.
Wikipedia dates its first usge as over 500 years ago, and complaints less than 300.
Neither the image posted nor “dismantling the gender binary” are feminist. And while the latter seems a worthwhile cause that deserved its own name and slogans, the former is a piece of art which echos hateful stereotypes about men and thus causes some.very real revulsion from viewers outraged by those stereotypes.
Maybe on your half. Like I said, I’m only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.
I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.
Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.
There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)
(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are two of my favorite things, but Poe’s ls is a real thing.
Without a clear indicator of intent, it’s impossible to distinguish snark from extremism
Fwiw, I realized years ago that the only people whose opinion of my parenting actually matter are the adults my descendents will grow up to be.
It’s worse than that. It’s a sexist assertion that all men model the worst of our gender while all women model the best of theirs, which aggrivatingly dismisses feminist progressive men and excusing sexist regressive women.
DomeWife is not the one teaching DomeBaby about bodily autonomy or feminism, though she does have plenty of examples of women being sexist to our manly kith and kin.
I can’t tell if this is an example of Poe’s law or why it’s a thing.
Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying “No they don’t” to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person’s suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like “nobody should suffer like that.”
Please understand that “nothing” means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.
The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the “you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working” weirdness.
Instead, they’ll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.
(that last option, btw, is killing social security.)