Haha jokes on the kid! My grandmother would buy all sorts of crap only use it once then give it to my mom. My mom has it piled away in a store room and when she goes, I’ll add it to my hoard collection. (Were not super hoard-y and can still walk and use all my furnature, etc, we just cant bring ourselves to throw away things that work, in case we need or want them one day / possibly sell them as collectables, even though they’re worth nothing now…) when I go, the kid will inherent 3 generations of crap. Sucker!

I had to double check to see if this was an onion article.

Thank goodness someone explained that to me. I was startong to wonder if she was some sort of technology expert, or something.

Theres a neighbor that doesnt want to add more ambulances only cause they dont want to pay more taxes. Like dude, we have 4 ambulances for 100,000 people.

Some people just dont care, even when they know they’ll benefit from it, too.

The only things I see that have a visa logo on it, are those prepaid cards. Out of all the cards I’ve ever had, bank or credit, I’m pretty sure only 1 has ever been visa, and that was like 15+ years ago, everything else is, or has been MasterCard.

Idk, ask the Texas Tribune, haha.

I feel people have made the same mistake before, and confused crowdtangle, which is a disinformation tracker, and tangles, which is a “surveillance-for-hire outfit.” Meta probably felt the need to clarify, at least once time before.

One point of contention. I dont think tangles is some defunct meta app. Texas has recently acquired a contract with a law enforcement surveillance tool called tangles.

Tangles is a product offered by the cybersecurity company Cobwebs Technologies, which was founded in Israel in 2014 by three former members of Israeli military special units. The company has said their products, which are marketed as open source intelligence (OSINT) tools, have been used to combat terrorism, drug smuggling, and money laundering, but Meta has accused the company of operating as a surveillance-for-hire outfit. In 2023, Cobwebs Technologies was acquired by the Nebraska-based tech firm PenLink Ltd.

This tool is out there, and still being used.

Per the article

The resolution simply requires the hand counting of physical paper ballots at the precinct level to ensure it matches the total reported by the tabulators. This does not involve a hand-count tabulation of the vote totals but rather simply the total number of physical ballots cast at that particular precinct.

So, because in Tennessee, a QR Code error created a mismatch between the number of physical ballots vs tabulated ones, and they found the same code error in 64 out of 66 counties in Georgia’s tabulators, they are going to hand count the number of ballots to make sure it matches the number the tabulators counted. Especially, since they apparently found a bunch of additional ballots in some counties, as well…

I mean, this seems reasonable on the surface. But, considering the situation, it seems like it could all go really sideways.

Isn’t there another way they could count just the number of paper ballots? Like, as they come in, instead of later on, by hand? I’m not sure of the way thier system / machines work, or of a way that would convince everyone of privacy, but…like a laser counter that counts every time its broken, or something…Idk, there just seems like there has to be a better way.

Edit: so really, objectively speaking, this is an issue. One that wouldnt be caught unless they ordered a hand recount after the fact. I mean, obviously, this isnt an objective source, but, unless theyre just straight up making this up (which I suppose is a possibility), how is not having every ballot counted OK? Isnt there a better suggestion than breaking the seal immediately, counting everything by hand, and inviting all the issues that come with that? Something that could even be presented to the court or something as an alternative, that everybody could agree with. At least people could say they tried to solve the issue another way. If it gets rejected, then it would be plainly obvious there were ulterior motives. At this point, it sounds as if theres some plausible deniability behind the reasoning for hand counting.

Thats a street urchin. Strangely, this blog post was one of the first links that came up. It ponders how the name street urchin came to be.

It says

Looking in the OED, I see two possibly relevant definitions. 1c. A goblin or elf. (From the supposition that they occasionally assumed the form of a hedgehog.)… There is also 4a. A pert, mischievous, or roguish youngster; a brat.

Edit: formatting is crazy

Right. I dont know why everyone assumes its a dead body.

Are you actually referring to 1971?

Theres a link to the other article, in this article. Says Kristin Houser wrote it…although you may have a point about the rest.

I would think maybe Sour cream instead of Mayo. Make it more creamy and give it a bit of that acidity.

That happen to a person in our group in Australia, but with cocaine. We were waiting to collect our baggage before customs. The officers told them to put it in thier waistline and see if the dog would sniff it out. Pups was sucessful and got some pets. He didn’t have a Kong tho.

Bet they use this case as reason to ban abortion pills instead.

I mean, drinking it (well tasting) used to be the legit way of testing it.

There doesn’t seem to be an indication of how far along this is. An embryo turns into a fetus at 10 weeks. Stupid healthline says the brain left and right halves of the brain don’t develop until the third trimester. At that point abortion is reserved for severe birth defects and such.

Iol, I have no idea why this popped up on your feed either.

So, no. No resolution. We’ve never found anything, in or around, that could remotely be used in this manner. We could never replicate it.

I do understand where your coming from. I do, also, understand where everyone else was coming from as well. It seemed pretty wild, even to us. I admit, I was slightly suprised at the mental illness suggestions, but not totally taken aback. I expected people to think more along the lines of what you’ve brought up. That I’m trying to use a device like this, on someone else. Which I wasn’t and I’m not. Nobody really stood to benefit from this. There was no large sum of money, we all got along for many years, and we were always on relatively good terms. It was just thier mental decline that made them act in ways we really never expected.

Some type of conformation bias may possibly be the closest reason, second to it just really happening, and we did consider that, but it just got way to specific way to many times. Hell, at the beginning of the whole mess, they made some off handed comment that they were “a little psychic,” lol, So who knows. We really thought it was the radio, but like I said, we couldn’t replicate it. I just thought I would try my luck and see if anyone might have had some answers.

I will add that, a friend did get me some CO2 detectors. Mostly cause they noticed there werent any fire detectors either. They haven’t gone off yet, so…

This person was really close to us for a really long time. I may have changed some “names” for privacy reasons, but the situations and conversations are truly the way it all played out. In the end, they never came back and everything was left in limbo. We never got another change to recreate the situation and we never got any answers. I do admit, we haven’t made a huge super thorough sweep of the place. We figured that anything being used that frequently would be easy enough to find. The place has just been left, mostly as is, just like everything else that came out of this crazy situation. I wish there was something more final to offer, but there just is not. Maybe one day, when we finally get brave enough to clean it out, proper, and we’ll stumble across something. But until then, its just one of life’s mysteries, I guess.

Not the op you responded to, but, I suppose, it’s a fair question.

Although unsure of the timeline, the fact checking drop is something that was definitely agreed to by both parties before hand.

Maybe they’re referring to how “Before the debate, Biden allies tried to pressure the CNN moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, to aggressively fact-check any false statements made by Mr. Trump. CNN leadership made clear that the moderators would facilitate the discussion but that any fact-checking would be left to the candidates.”. Like they had a chance to reconsider, but decided to stick with the original terms?

I mean they didn’t really correct anything that was incorrectly stated.

But if you insist.