next year when the Trump tax cuts expire
It's worth repeating again that the middle class Trump tax cuts expire next year. The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy have no expiration date and are permanent.
Also, they're not "Trump" tax cuts but Republican tax cuts, but at this point the distinction doesn't really mean anything anymore since Trump has completely taken over the party.
My mistake, I thought by "qualified immunity" the original comment meant the immunity to any prosecution they just gave to Presidents. I wasn't thinking about qualified immunity to law enforcement.
Edit: I was thinking about the wrong "immunity" in this comment (the recently granted Presidential immunity to prosecution, not immunity to prosecution for law enforcement officers). I'll leave the comment for context, but it's not what the original commenter was talking about.
Actually it will be very easy for the Supreme Court to give Trump a win and keep qualified immunity. If Biden didn't directly order the raid on Mar-a-lago, then the immunity they granted doesn't apply.
Remember, these rulings don't need logical consistency because they are bad faith justifications for any actions taken by their team. So when a Republican is in office they can extend the immunity to basically the whole Executive branch, but when a Democrat is in the White House that can shrink to just the President's actions. And even there only those that are "official acts," which only the Supreme Court gets to decide, so they can shrink it to almost nothing.
I don't recommend making significant changes to activity levels at the same time as making diet changes. Weight loss comes from changing what you eat. Exercise is absolutely necessary for a healthy lifestyle, but it is not the major factor in weight loss. And increasing exercise behaviors can destabilize eating habits, making it harder to stick to any good changes you do make with either diet or exercise.
Can't download on Firefox for Android. Why does it require a desktop browser?
I think that's actually good UX from a safety standpoint. It means the button is "idempotent": doing an operation the first time puts it in a state, and then doing it again leaves it still in that state.
If you're in a moment of panic and want the brake on, you might push the button a bunch of times in quick succession to "be sure." If it were a regular button, this would rapidly toggle it on and off, which would leave it in an uncertain state after you pressed it so fast. This way it turns on and stays active until you are ready to turn it off, and then you do another idempotent operation to turn it off. I don't think all buttons should be like this, but I think it's a good design decision for a button used in an "emergency."
That strongly depends on the job. If the company has to follow regulations to meet some security posture, wiping the OS (and all the security tools and configuration set up by IT) to put your own favored OS without matching the security requirements could wind up with you getting fired.
put up posters urging customers to "close the door" behind them
Do customers read postings in the UK? Because they certainly don't in the US.
They should install some kind of mechanism to automatically close the door when it's not being held open. If the higher-ups don't want to pay for it, he should calculate how many bags of crisps it would take to pay for it, and then say when Steven has been prevented from stealing crisps for X days it will have paid for itself.
Language is magic for these people, specifically the right grouping of words is supposed to be an incantation to get them out of social responsibility, and the wrong collection of words is what binds them.
Since the state regulates "driving" of vehicles, no sovcit drives. They all "move" vehicles or "transport" vehicles.
It's ridiculous, because law revolves around actions independent of how anyone in specific describes those actions, but that's the mindset of these people. Viewing their beliefs as a kind of word Tetris has at least helped me wrap my head around what could possibly give them some of their strange notions of law.
No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn't apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don't factor into ex post facto considerations.
The core is about change. To accept climate change means they have to make changes to their lifestyle, and they don't like having to change. Beyond that, it's rationalizations and bad faith arguments from the usual grifters and corporations layered on top of that to justify the position they chose emotionally.