Well, leaving aside whether a lot of people don't distrust and whether a lawyer would or should be among those people, lawyers typically don't cite things without checking them first. I work at a biglaw firm, can't imagine it never getting caught that the cases don't exist. This sounds like a midsize firm, should be fairly similar.
There are a few small law firms/sole prop type guys, however, who I have crossed paths with for whom this kind of stupidity and carelessness would be on brand though.
Guess he was just in a rush and figured this would be one of the 2/10 times he files something without at least taking a look at the opinions first, and it ended up being a massive error.
This is a stupidly glib comment. The poster meant that the reality of life as a Jehova's Witness cannot be gleaned from looking at some document of the religion, and I think you knew that, but decided to take a shot at the Bible anyways because you've been acculturated to think that dunking on religion is both correct and acceptable.
I would be willing to give them a shot one again one day (there are so few purveyors of pre-installed Linux computers), though not for the ~$1k Thelio costs.
Right now, WSL is working great for me, but Windows seems to be getting increasingly aggressive with wanting one to use their search, etc.
Their build quality feels poor. Sometimes it's hard to tell when an issue is just a vicissitude of using Linux or their fault, but I would overall not recommend.
Your comment implies that the Federal government legit thinks MSFT's monopolies are ok, and that they always get what they want in this area. Obviously the latter is def not true.
Fake news about Hillary Clinton is a good example, as is Breitbart's very existence, as are foreign reddit bots, as are a lot of political extremists parroting views in their own posts on subjects about which they have no knowledge, etc.
Granted, for things like Breitbart, one has to affirmatively opt-in.
This isn't new, but most Republicans didn't care when the brunt of this was felt by Muslims and others. Only when a far-right politician who plays to white supremacist tropes wanted to buy political dirt from an American adversary who was also emgaged in a digital misinformation campaign against the politician's opponent did they start to act like this was some abuse of power.
Meanwhile, during peak "War on Terror", they routinely accused people who raised concerns about law enforcement abuses of being unpatriotic "bleeding hearts"
The "criticized the president" scenario is already simply a violation of the first amendment and not done, and the gun thing is plausible with or without CBDC.
I'm not stumping for CBDC, but these examples seem to carry the assumption that the government would be doing them were it not for practical barriers that CBDC permits them to bypass. But I think the government could do them now, it just doesn't.
I'm not actually sure what the social media thing has to do with CBDC at all actually.
There are a few small law firms/sole prop type guys, however, who I have crossed paths with for whom this kind of stupidity and carelessness would be on brand though.
Guess he was just in a rush and figured this would be one of the 2/10 times he files something without at least taking a look at the opinions first, and it ended up being a massive error.