SSNs are no longer distributed in that fashion. They are randomly assigned since 2011. But they also weren't sequential. They were divided up by regions and doled out to more local areas.
I've read plenty of documents from lawyers I don't pay that were not trying to influence or scare me. It would be really strange to assume their documents were. And when it comes to interpreting legal documents (what is being discussed here), "I'm not a lawyer" is far worse than "I'm not your lawyer".
That starts off with "I'm not a lawyer". So as much as people think they understand it, lawyers have to read the actual text of the entire license and interpret what could happen in a court case. With the vagueness of the license, it isn't unreasonable for lawyers to read it and say "there is risk here. if this goes in front of the wrong judge, we could be in trouble"
No it may not be legal. If you continually follow someone, silent or not, it could cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or to experience emotional distress. There is nuance to this, but just the act of continually following someone can be stalking (even if you never engage with them).
Edit: And they apparently are even today: https://www.apple.com/connectED/index.html "We’ve donated an iPad to every student, a Mac and iPad to every teacher, and an Apple TV to every classroom."
The no-wifi seems to just be the kickstarter. When I ordered mine a little while back, they had an option for wifi (extra $8-$10, as I recall). I haven't received it yet...so not sure if it actually does.
This goes both ways. Numerous people (companies?) have setup arbitrage businesses. They post products on Amazon at a markup over Walmart and vice-versa. They leverage the APIs to dynamically adjust their prices based on how the prices move on each store. It technically isn't a rip-off, when you think about it. They are taking advantage of people not searching for the best deal. You get what you ordered, they make money from scouting prices and putting at a price you are willing to pay for said product (I assume otherwise you wouldn't order).
Don't get me wrong, when this happens, I get that feeling of rip off, but the reality is, I didn't price shop. And someone did some work to get it to show up for me where I was looking.
It appears you may not have read the bill either. It does not prevent sexual education to kids (if it stated that, it wouldn't have been that overly controversial). But that isn't what it says. It states it prohibits "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students". That is a very important distinction from what you are saying. Sexual education is not prohibited, as long as it avoids discussing those two topics.
The other important distinction is that it is not just primary grade levels impacted, it is all levels (note the "or"s).
Have you gone through TurboTax's filing process? It starts with ~$149 upgrade for me, I believe. They have countless add-ons that popup throughout the filing process beyond just that (annual audit defense membership, get your refund faster, etc). So many up-sells and cross-sells, it is pretty disgusting.
I stopped using them last year because it was just too much. I can easily see how someone could end up with a multi-hundred dollar bill from them. Many of the popups are tailored to look like you need to say yes.
If we are throwing around anecdotes. I grew up in an east coast city run by the exact opposite politicians and policies you are complaining about. The crime rates and safety in that city was far worse than Seattle's numbers. Even today, it has some of the highest crime rates in the country. They don't have any of these policies you are saying are causing this. You know what they do have? A massive income and wealth inequality. This is a complex situation and the political axe grinding really moves nothing in the right direction. Neither sides' solutions have "worked". They have just shifted where the burden is.
> The reality of the world is that a big power gets to dicate what smaller countries can do around them. I don't like that either, but that's how it is and you can find multiple examples of that in the world throughout history. The USA has applied this same kind of doctrine the Russians are trying to impose on their smaller neighbours for over a century[1]. You live in a world where this is how things work and if you pretend you don't , you can cause a lot of suffering to your own people.
This has nothing to do with what I said. So "ok"!? Thank you for explaining that strong countries swing it around because they can. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince me that people do that [we are talking about someone doing that right now] or it somehow justifies it as ok [yes, that is what we are debating]? I can point to multiple points in modern times and history where people were persecuted because of physical attributes. That doesn't suddenly make it ok. I'm not sure what fallacy you are trying to point out or argument you are trying to prop up.
> So you get to tell Russians what they can do or not and what reasons are acceptable for them to motivate themselves? Well, then perhaps Russia can tell Ukraine that their reasons to join NATO are not acceptable either?
Again, I made no claims as to what I'd say to Russia or Russians or where I said I'm against people/countries speaking their minds. But we can go down this path...because it doesn't end up where you probably thought. I literally stated that Russia is absolutely free to say to Ukraine they don't agree with them trying to join NATO. My quote to you: "Russia is free to voice their concerns". You just restated what I previously said. So...not sure your point here or "fallacy" you are pointing out. Does that mean you are agreeing I'm right, since your rebuttal was paraphrasing me and not a list of reasons I'm wrong? I'm happy with dialogues and people speaking their mind. I'm not ok with war crimes and attacking others.
> They were for a long time.... when they attempted to join NATO, a Russia-hostile alliance whose creation was almost entirely motivated by the desire of Western powers to keep Russia in check, they absolutely signaled to Russia that they see Russia as their enemy.
The inaccuracies of statements about NATO's mission aside (I'm happy to concede, since it doesn't really change anything), the Ukrainian people certainly don't think so and history doesn't really show that. But even if we pretended they were an ally up until just weeks ago...they aren't much of an ally if they invade...so...I'm not sure your point here. it certainly doesn't counter my argument that Russia could have been an ally and supported Ukraine better. Now, with that out of the way, we can delve a little into history...rewind a bunch of years... I'd say pushing your troops into someone's country and stealing part of their territory isn't what an ally does. But wait, isn't your whole argument about accepting consequences and thus it becomes your fault for what someone did to you? Could a consequence of stealing part of someone's country be that they might not see you as an ally and want to try to build an alliance with countries that could help defend them against you!?!? By your own logic, that would make Russia responsible, so through your own reasoning, Russia is to blame, right? I know you like to avoid mentioning this event when you talk about your timelines (perhaps because your arguments fall flat otherwise), but are happy to link to Ukraine saying it is a goal to get their territory back (so you clearly are aware of the actual history here). So even if you decide to change your argument that "knowing the consequences makes you at fault" to say Russia isn't to blame, the reality is Ukraine didn't wake up one day and say, "We should be part of NATO despite Russia being our BFF." History is not on your side here.
> We can't agree on that, obviously... you believe that anyone should have the right to do what they want without consequences to themselves [...USA...]
I don't recall making any statements about the US anywhere. I don't recall making any statements that the US is an example to hold up to. I don't know if you are trying to say one wrong justifies another..or perhaps something else? The statements again don't speak to anything I said. So the best I can surmise is you are trying to say that Russia isn't to blame because look, someone else has done things. If that is the case, you are literally affirming my argument from above...not showing a fallacy in it. But this whole part fails to even refute what I said. You instead threw out a basic strawman argument that I somehow believe there are no consequences in the world. If saying that a country peacefully negotiating to form an alliance after multiple threats and an invasion of their country from someone, who you claim is an "ally", doesn't justify that country invading them again...then yes, I don't believe it justifies it and I don't believe that makes the attacked country responsible for the other country attacking. I just refer back to my actual argument that you failed to address or refute if you want more reasons as to why.
At the end of the day, you failed to point out any fallacies in my arguments. Or really respond to any of them other than what seems like shifting your argument to: Russia is big and strong. Big and strong countries get to do what they want and that is ok because <history>.
It seems like I've distilled down your argument correctly, and if so, there isn't much to debate there, since that simply confirms my argument from above. So I guess, thank you for agreeing my arguments are correct, but it is unfortunate you have no inclination to change your mind. Which is a position one can take, but not one for fruitful conversation. I sincerely wish you the best and hope you are able to find a way to identify and empathize with victims, rather than blame them someday.
It is a strange equivalence you are trying to build here. But to answer you directly: the people responsible for the sanctions are the people that enforced them. Full stop. Just like Russia is responsible for attacking and committing war crimes. Full stop.
Now, if you want to go down the more philosophical road, people tend to be more morally ok with not feeling for Russia (IE: not calling them a "victim") over the sanctions because the sanctions were in response to attacking a nation and committing war crimes (though, if you read, many are feeling for russian citizens as many oppose the actions of "their" government). The reason most people see Ukraine as a victim is because they were doing what a nation should be doing (trying to build alliances to protect themselves against hostile forces). And when most people look at those two situations, they can easily understand how they aren't the same thing. Signing a piece of paper != bombing a hospital. Your argument is trying to take away that there is meaning and nuances to actions. We could say, "Ukraine did A, so Russia did B in response after threatening to not do A" is the same as "Russia did B, and NATO did C in response after threatening to not do B". And thus if "Russia is 'to blame' in C, then it reasons that Ukraine is 'to blame' in B". That is effectively your stance boiled down. And you can live in that world and no one can take you out of it. But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves. You are also completely avoiding the reality of how it could have been avoidable. Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing. You try to paint Ukraine responsible because they could have just given in to the threats (which makes no sense, given the reality of the situation), but for some reason completely ignore that Russia could have much more easily just not threatened. They could have been an ally to Ukraine. Putin and company decided they were the more powerful party and wanted to swing it around. So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did. So no matter how you want to do your math, you are fundamentally wrong for victim-blaming in this situation.
So nothing in your examples justifies an invasion of another country (and coincidentally, leaves out all the acts of aggression by Russia). This feels a lot like the "she shouldn't have worn that" arguments. You appear to feel Russia is justified for attacking and committing war crimes because Ukraine had the audacity to want to strengthen their alliances and protect their territory. Something, ironically, you say they should be doing, just not in a way that would protect them from the threats they are facing...because...Sweden!?. It is an interesting stance to have; though not one rooted in the reality of the situation and threats Ukraine faces(d), which are nothing like Sweden's (pull up a map to see the most obvious reason they are in different situations). But since you brought it up, Sweden actively participates in NATO initiatives, are members of NATO's PfP ("track that will lead to NATO membership") and currently have troops deployed helping NATO initiatives. So they are not likely a good example for your case of how Ukraine could have avoided instigating Russia.
I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. Your statement was NATO should have not allowed Ukraine membership based on the threats from Russia of war. NATO did not allow Ukraine membership and even stated as much that Ukraine likely could never be a member. Russia got what they wanted. So what compromise was NATO not willing to make?
It feels like you are trying mental gymnastics to give a pass to a country starting a war. Russia is to blame, full stop. Russia should have no say in how Ukraine wants to move forward or the alliances they want to make. Russia is free to voice their concerns or better yet, provide better assurances and protection to Ukraine than what NATO could offer. Instead, they invaded. No one is at fault for that other than Russia.
On both my Windows laptop (Ryzen 7 + 1080Ti) and Windows Desktop (Ryzen 9 + dual RX 5700 XT) machines, it is really slow. Dragging windows is unbearable and the other apps are quite laggy (such as switching views in the "media" app). Both have hardware acceleration enabled.
An opposite statement can be said with the same amount of authority though: There is a common perception that companies only create policies we don't like through accidents and unforeseeable outcomes, not by specifically crafting policies to benefit the company. But sometimes bad policies are malicious and designed to maximize profits, even at the expense of long-term profits and customer retention. Maybe call to unsubscribe is one of those policies.
As someone that has worked (briefly) for a company that operated in this fashion (and being a partial owner of one that the CEO tried to shift to this model...we got the board together and fired him), it is not an accidentally bad policy. It is actively discussed as a way to squeeze out an extra pay cycle (and often more) of payments. In recorded meetings or audited channels (such as email) or even PR releases, you are guided to discuss it as a "personal touch with the customer" and to help "lost customers" resolve the issues rather than cancel. You even try to convince your employees/engineers that is the reason. But when it is face-to-face conversations, the discussions are around the dollars and squeezing out as many pay cycles as you can. I know I was being a bit cheeky with my first paragraph, but this is definitely not one of those "whoops, we didn't think this through" kind of policies. If it were, the policy would have changed without the FTC or laws being needed.
Google still exists. Facebook still exists. Meta/Alphabet are mainly holding companies. For example, I received reach outs from recruiters for Google and Facebook today. Not from Meta and Alphabet. Maybe once Meta and Alphabet deliver on things and build brand recognition, it should change. Until then, I'd vote "no".
You'd be amazed how much cheaper it is to have a human do it than pay for automation. But also, law/contract required the data to be accurate (so there were 3 people, at minimum, entering the exact same data and records would be flagged if any of the 3 did not match). OCR, at the time (and even now), is highly unreliable with human handwriting. Not that I disagree with your statement, automation would have been nice. And though I like to think we want humans doing higher-level things, a lot of the people there were happy to get decent pay and not have to think for their day job.
I did data entry for a job. In my experience, the numpad was considerably faster and accurate. It has been a long time, but I recall it cutting down entry time by ~5-6x (yes, I finished my daily quota in about an hour or two, instead of all day). The advantage was being able to use multiple fingers comfortably, without looking (there is a nice nub on most numpads) and leaving a hand free for letters/tabs. But like anything, I'm sure there are people that would have a different experience.