data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f23ae/f23ae0dbc3c54d384754da0746b7df9d687fc207" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1df69/1df69f53f5559e83c288e08b403109544e78dc05" alt=""
What law are they breaking? Not trying to defend Google or anything, just curious what law is blatantly being broken here because I don't know of one
What law are they breaking? Not trying to defend Google or anything, just curious what law is blatantly being broken here because I don't know of one
I think they still can but they have less fine control over which ad placements they disable? I'm not totally sure, but that's what this link seems to imply https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en
Those YouTubers have the option to disable ads on their channel if that is truly all the revenue they need, you don't need to make that decision for them
This wouldn't be gross incompetence, it is a standard treatment that comes with pregnancy risks that the patient can choose to take knowing that they aren't going to give birth. All of those quotes youve selectively pulled are in reference to unexpected injury that isn't outlined in the waiver, so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't apply in this case. Neither of us are lawyers though, I wonder if any lawyer fed heads could chime in
Yes they do. In new york (where this took place), and most places, doctors are protected by liability waivers if the patient has informed consent. Read this for more information if you want an actual informed opinion on this
https://sobolaw.com/medical-malpractice/signing-a-waiver-before-surgery-can-you-still-sue/
Nice imaginary conversation, I'm sure you're a totally qualified doctor and lawyer… just have the patient sign a liability waiver dude
That should be the women's choice to make though. She doesn't want a baby, if she has an unexpected pregnancy she will abort, so she doesn't need to take all that into account. She should get her treatment and a prior warning about pregnancy issues that could occur
Rural America isnt on lemmy, you’re talking to an empty chair unfortunately
Lol you tile your desktop as much as your kitchen floor? I only tend to need to have three things up at most so Mac optimizes my screen space the best since I have 2 monitors, but I’m not on on the multitasking level of many people here it seems
*I think mac os started supporting tiling of non full screen windows as well according to some other comments so maybe kitchen style would work now
Lol Im very against all of those things, thinking minors shouldn’t be sexualized by adults has nothing to do with any of those terms you rattled off. Go fuck your underage waifu pillow
I was using the legal (and very commonly used, btw) definition of child, since *acting on pedophilia is illegal. I’m not normalizing anything by comparing them to pedophiles, youre the one trying to normalize sexual relations with people under 18
Allow me to recite the third sentence of that Wikipedia article you linked since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong suit:
“The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1] Children generally have fewer rights and responsibilities than adults. They are classed as unable to make serious decisions.” such as sex with a grown man
Nah, I’m just saying I don’t feel uncomfortable calling someone who preys on children a pedophile, cause they’re gross either way
Lmao a 16 year old being hit on by a 30 year old is not age appropriate sexual acts, it’s about mental maturity
I feel like the full screen tiling on mac makes up for this. Having used both windows and Mac a lot I think I slightly prefer Mac’s way of splitting full screen windows but I see the appeal of both
I said people who care about the distinction, not people who know the term
I like also like “All cops are bad” for when you want to get the message across without cursing or disparaging the parentless
The only people who care about this distinction are pedophiles / whatever that term is.
How can you even form an opinion on this if, as you stated in that thread, you literally have no idea what typescript is and are just a beginner in js? You got down voted for saying typescript is unnecessary without even knowing what it is or what the thing you’re working with’s limitations are, which is a pretty objectively braindead stance to take. You’re a beginner js developer, you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to preferences of ts vs js, just that all of the beginner level stuff you have tried to do works in js so therefore typescript or frameworks must be unnecessary
I'm rescheduling my marijuana to 4:20 to fuel the rise of dank brandon.