This is literally what happens to Helldivers in Helldivers 2. As much as I enjoy the game I'd rather not have Super Earth become a reality.

This was a defamation case, i.e. a civil case. Ten's defence was that their imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins was substantially true, so the judge had to rule on whether or not the rape happened. It is not a criminal conviction and there won't be one in this case because the criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct.

Out of character, super earth is obviously not good, but I don't think the helldivers are, necessarily. More victims imo

Helldivers are absolutely victims of Super Earth's leadership. The tutorial shows just how little training they actually receive, then they're immediately frozen and shipped off to be used as disposable cannon fodder. Their missions are almost always accomplished by throwing Helldivers at the objective until the ones lucky enough to survive complete it, or they run out of bodies.

ABC News in Australia has been using the passive voice everywhere in regards to Israel until they simply couldn't avoid it any longer now that Israel has killed an Australian aid worker.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/26/australias-abc-staffs-concerns-over-gaza-bias-revealed#:~:text=Staff at Australia's national broadcaster,claims that convulsed the outlet. ABC staff have been complaining internally about pro-Israel bias in their use of language too

snake_case gang represent

The chamber of commerce and other employer groups never want minimum or award wages to rise by more than inflation.

I recall more than one year (every year?) where they asked for minimum wage increases that were less than inflation. They don't just want wages to stagnate, they want wages to decrease.

I deleted my 12 year old account the day his buyout went through and never looked back.

Incoming wall of text:

"To short sell an IPO like Reddit's, you'd typically follow these steps. However, it's important to remember that short selling involves significant risk and requires careful consideration and planning.

1. Brokerage Account with Short Selling Capability: Ensure you have a brokerage account that allows for short selling. Not all brokerage accounts have this feature, so you may need to apply for permission or open an account with a different broker.

2. IPO Availability: After the IPO, there will be a period before shares are available to short. This is because the shares need to be in the secondary market and sufficiently distributed to provide liquidity. The time frame can vary, but it's usually a few days to weeks after the IPO.

3. Locate Shares to Short: Before you can short sell, your broker needs to locate shares that you can borrow to sell. This can be challenging immediately after an IPO due to the limited number of shares available. Your broker's ability to find shares will depend on the relationships they have with other institutions and their clients' holdings.

4. Understanding the Risks: Short selling an IPO is particularly risky. IPOs can be very volatile, and prices can spike significantly in the short term. This volatility can lead to substantial losses, as your potential loss on a short sale is theoretically unlimited (since there's no cap on how high a stock price can rise).

5. Executing the Short Sale: Once your broker has located shares for you to borrow, you can place a short sell order. This involves selling shares you don't own at the current market price, with the intention of buying them back later at a lower price to return to the lender, profiting from the difference.

6. Cover Your Position: You'll need to monitor the market closely. If the stock price drops, you can buy back the shares at the lower price (covering your short position) and return them to the lender, keeping the price difference as profit. However, if the stock price increases, you'll be facing losses and may be subject to a margin call, requiring you to add more funds to your account or cover your short position at a loss.

7. Consider the Regulations and Costs: Be aware of regulations concerning short selling and any additional costs, such as borrowing fees for the shares and interest on the margin used to open the short position.

Because of the risks and complexities involved, it's highly recommended to consult with a financial advisor or a professional before attempting to short sell any stock, especially an IPO. Short selling requires a solid understanding of the market, the specific stock, and a high tolerance for risk."

GPT 4

OH SO YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION? You want to keep people imprisoned in their 15 minute cities? ^heavy ^/s

God damn it, that headline got my hopes up for a second.

GP fees have increased steadily over the last decade but the previous conservative Liberal/National coalition government froze the Medicare rebate in 2014 to try to force more of a user-pays system into place, which led more and more practices to stop bulk billing (only charging the rebate amount, meaning no cost to the patient). The current Labor government (ostensibly centre-left but arguably more centre-right now) has increased the rebate, but it hasn't been enough to significantly reverse the trend yet. Specialist fees have always had an out of pocket cost in my adult lifetime (15-20 years).

Specialist fees (and nowadays a lot of GP fees for that matter) are not fully covered by the Medicare rebate. Typically you'll pay about $300 for an standard consultation appointment and get not quite half of that back.

Let's give your Big Unit SUV its own special roads too. Then we could attach multiples of them together to be able to fit even more people in them. We could then run electrical wires over the special roads so they wouldn't have to carry their own power source around.

Nah, it could never be done.

I'd say Eric is more like Buster because if they had a Michael they might not be in so much trouble.

Just announce that you're running for office, then the charges become election interference.

Almost like it's an ideological thing and not based on any kind of evidence or fiscal policy.

The bar for proving defamation is already high enough that there's no risk of accidentally chilling honest political speech.

Not in Australia, the bar for defo is stupidly low. The defendant basically has to prove their innocence. The law is fucked and the new "public interest" defence failed its first test in court. Defamation law is abused by the rich and powerful to suppress free speech and silence critics. Even if you can successfully prove substantial truth or genuinely held opinion you'll still be ruined by all the legal costs.

The door is still attached, obvious fake is obvious.

The true American patriots are the ones who take the case on the side of the prosecution.