

The real answer: hire a law firm, entrust them with your documents, write into your will what you want to happen with them, and then go on about your business.
The real answer: hire a law firm, entrust them with your documents, write into your will what you want to happen with them, and then go on about your business.
You think a woman choosing to enter sex work is being exploited? OF and the NFL can be exploitative platforms, but because they are corporations, not because someone on the internet forgot to save the people taking part in those enterprises
So does the NFL. Are you making sure NFL players are saving for retirement, too?
Bro what
In addition to allowing Google to manage the authentication process, signing in with Google allows Google to track your visits. In some cases they get additional data about content you view.
In many cases the mere presence of that button allows Google to track that your device visited the Udemy sign in/sign up page, even if you don’t click it. Google uses this to create and update a profile of you they sell for advertising and other purposes, and exposes you to more risk if your Google account is breached. With a password manager I find using SSO to be about the same level of effort as using my manager’s autofill functionality
Drat. Thanks 😂
Does this imply that if I am standing on an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line, and I am lifting and dropping a sufficiently massive object such that I’m causing the object in standing on to accelerate towards the object I’m dropping, that eventually I’ll slow or stop the object I’m standing on?
That depends on where you live. Most places in the US, yes it is legal. It’s legal to keep almost any data for any reason in most of the US
Your username is not the best ever. Why are you lying?
People are attracted to people who are comfortable with themselves. Take the time to learn who you are, and friendships, romance, and relationships will follow.
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point
No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
Depends on what you mean by matter. The point of the criminal justice system is, theoretically, to determine who breaks the law, and to punish people who break the law. In that sense it matters because Trump was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
If what you mean is that it will change the politics of America, certainly. Trump is now running with the specter of a conviction hanging over him. Even assuming appeals and pardons, that fundamentally changes the nature of the election. It raises real and serious questions about how he could serve if under house arrest, parole, or in prison. It forces us to reckon with the balance of powers in this country - can a person dodge justice because they attain high office, or do we hold them accountable no matter what?
If what you mean is in reality, no it probably won’t do shit.
And why do old people randomly capitalize nouns? Every Sentence reads like the just read the Written Word for the first time and wanted to give It a Try For Themselves
Gatekeeping on following the scientific method is pretty good gatekeeping if you ask me. Again, what you are arguing is anathema to centuries of scientific endeavors. You’re applying your own interpretation to something that has literally hundreds of years of meaning already, in a way that is just not right. It’s not gatekeeping any more than “a court of law” gatekeeps the concept of justice.
I mean, Yann LeCunn disagrees with you but sure. Go on.
No it literally cannot be so defined. The last part of the scientific method is “report conclusions.” That means public scrutiny free of bias. Internal groups are not public.
This is akin to saying that a corporation doesn’t need to use the courts because it has internal judges. They might have trials, but by definition they are not doing justice.
No, they can’t. Peer review is not the peers you determine - it’s the peers of your community. Science that is not public is not science, because it cannot be independently verified and reproduced. It is not a small point, it’s one of the foundations of the disciplines of science.
Everything is wire if the voltage is high enough