The illegal part is key to it being at least as stupid. A drug conviction can change your life just as surely as student debt.
You can want it all you want. It's just not reality. And pretending like it is isn't helpful to people trying to learn the language.
SCOTUS doesn't interpret the state constitution. The state courts do that. SCOTUS then takes the state interpretation as fact and judges if it violates the supremacy clause of the US constitution.
Doing illegal drugs is at least as dumb a choice as getting into debt to get an education.
Most countries have some waivable rights. The US specifically allows you to waive your right to bring disputes to court through contracts. You retain the ability to challenge the arbitration requirement in court, but if you have any other concerns, it's arbitration.
They're just taking the argument that Imane Khelif and others like her shouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's competition to it's logical conclusion. Pretty sure it's to show the ridiculousness of it suggesting she shouldn't be allowed to compete against women due to a genetic advantage despite being a woman.
If 1/5 of people can't "correctly" function in society in some specific way, you have to at least wonder if it's them who is wrong or society.
Boomers would also not be having enough kids to meet replacement by that graph.
It would be a contraction of had: "I had better write..." Using would there doesn't make sense.
It depends on the age of the kids. If they're not school-age, probably about what I expect people who really work from home to get done. If the kids are in school, then most daily chores and errands are on them.
They don't actually understand what you're asking for so they aren't going to go do the task. They'll give whatever answer seems plausible based on what everyone else in their training data has said. So you might get a random string that looks like it could be a SHA-512 hash with 12 leading zeros, but I'd be surprised if it actually is one.
view more: next ›
candybrie
joined 1 year ago
The presented scenario was comparing not forgiving loans to not releasing people for drug convictions. I don't see how you can say going into debt for an education was a poorer choice than risking a conviction and jail time for weed.