Okay well I just uploaded it to an imgur album. Here you go: https://imgur.com/a/yoJch6n

Actual lawyer here. Just in case anyone was somehow unsure, this is utter nonsense.

In fact, calling it nonsense might be giving nonsense a bad name. Completely deranged might be better.

But yes. These people do exist. And they are a pain in the fucking ass. Every 100th filing they actually say something that does have legal precedent, and that you can't ignore. So you have to actually read every line of their bullshit. Nobody wants to be the lawyer that actually lost to a sovereign...

But hey, at least they usually end up paying our fees in the end.

Yo same. It's truly amazing. I've had great effect with it in League of Legends. I'm sure this applies to other games, but in League, it's a good rule of thumb that the whole team committing to the wrong play is better than half the team committing to the right play. So if you and your pal disagree with the call, but all three other players are going, you should go as well.

But nobody has time to type all that right before a teamfight. So. "Apes together strong."

It is now, but you used to get a free one each day, iirc. So while this is definitely cringe, there's a chance, depending on when it happened (if it happened), that it's slightly less than max cringe.

Edit: I looked closer, this is apparently from 2016, you still got free super likes back then.

According to a quick google, you can only have up to three of the same cards in a Yu-Gi-Oh deck. So you can't keep the ratios the same.

I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh, but I play Magic, and it's similar there, but you can have up to four of any card.

I imagine most trading card games are like this, otherwise you could just make a deck of only the most OP card or something. Not exactly fun to build, or play, or play against.

This is good advice, I appreciate it. But I should clarify, I definitely won't be launching my practice before I'm comfortable with the OS. I'm probably going to take some other user's suggestions and do some test runs on my home machine to figure things out. I'm not launching tomorrow, there's no real rush. My current contract runs until May 2024. So I've got 6 months ahead of me to figure things out.

This seems like a good thread to ask this.. I'm sure I could find the answers I need myself but frankly I trust the userbase here more than most online articles.

As my username hints at, I'm a lawyer. I'm considering starting my own firm as a solo practitioner. I need a computer and/or laptop for it, and as a new business my budget would be pretty tight. I've mostly only ever used windows, but I'm getting fed up with the bullshit, so I'm considering going with Linux.

I assume Linux is capable of doing everything I need, which is primarily handling word documents, viewing PDFs, watching evidence videos, and online research. But my concern is that some of the more commonly used video types might have trouble on Linux, or that some of the word document templates I use in Windows might have compatibility issues.

I'm also nervous about using an OS I'm not familiar with for business purposes right away.

So I guess I'm asking a few questions. What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started? Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues? What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go? Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

For reference, I do consider myself to be somewhat tech-savvy. I don't code or anything, but I've built my last two home computers myself and I'm not scared of general software management, I just don't make it myself.

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

I don't mean to be a downer here but... It sounds like she's just not right for you. To me it sounds like you've made efforts to try to improve and she hasn't. It takes two people working on a relationship to make it last.

While yes, communication is one key in a healthy and lasting relationship, the other key is mutual respect. Yes, you have to talk to each other, but just as important is having the respect to try and understand the other person's side and find a mutually acceptable resolution. It sounds like she doesn't respect you much, to me.

Granted, this isn't my relationship, and I'm sure I'm only seeing one negative aspect instead of the full picture, so don't take my words as definitive. But, I stand by this: if you don't feel respected, the relationship either isn't going to last, or it will and you will be miserable.

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn't truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn't always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn't harsh enough, the prosecutor won't agree to it, and if it's too harsh, the defense won't agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it's "only" 6 more months, but that's really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it's not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (????)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn't have happened, yes, it's tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you're saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don't think that's the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it's very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I'm not sure on that one, but that's because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that's not her fault, that's the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it's now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That's a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that's all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you're discussing individual crimes, not just when you're talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.

Criminal defense attorney here, confirming this is correct in at least every jurisdiction I'm aware of.

But as always, it's best to contact a lawyer in the same jurisdiction of the court to know for sure.

That's been Catholicism's playbook since day one. There's a reason they're so against any kind of sex that doesn't lead to procreation.

Course, it also used to be rooted in the fact that medicine was trash for a long time, and a lot of kids died, so you'd want to have as many as you could to give some a shot at living a full life. But that's not the case anymore, so yeah, the only reasons to have as many kids as possible is as you say, to outnumber the sane people, and to keep the working class populated, so we inch closer and closer to Idiocracy becoming reality every day.

But hey, look at those shareholder's profits!