Including but not limited to larsony.

It's like larceny, but involves taking someone else's stuff and setting it on fire.

Sort of, but it's more so that I tend to look for songs that match whatever's on my mind or whatever "thing" I think I need to hear at the moment. Although sometimes it is a fixtation on a certain artist or genre, most of the time I'm just looking to deal with something and the music is just there to destress or reorient.

It's also why I don't usually like describing what kind of music do I listen to, because I feel like I have to compromise for fear of hearing something like "Why do you listen to THAT?".

In a weird way I guess it's my opinion that music can be social and also innately personal, so for me asking "What's on your playlist" is equal parts "What do you like to listen to?" and "What are you like?" and I don't always feel open to answering personal questions.

Nah.

It's probably more so that if the scam artists can convince a few members of the congregation to go in on it, their interpersonal relationships and religious background ("They'd never give me a bad deal") will keep anyone from looking too closely at it, and of those that are skeptical, they're probably not going to say anything to the FBI or secret service because they don't want their friends or church leadership to lose all their money to an investigation or attract unwanted attention from people aware of the sudden financial windfall.

Given the reports that people were told to keep it "hush hush", I'm guessing a few knew the money wasn't legit but went along with it anyway because they were profiting off it at the time, and too much oversight might damage that income.

It wouldn't shock me if MLMs targeted any closely knit group that could give their scam a sense of legitimacy.

e.g #girlboss and the terms affiliation with MLM schemes targeting women.

The cuomosexual comments kinda backfired.

I mean they're not wrong.

Reddit likes to demand that the law get thrown away whenever something seems "unfair", but without a court case that would absolve the state of financial responsibility, they may be stuck footing the bill.

Venezuala is a member of OPEC along with those "right wing authoritarians", so I doubt you're barking up the right tree.

America has no interest in nationalizing the oil infrastructure because we're not idiots.

Once you take over an industry and put party loyalists in charge, you basically remove anyone who has any idea what they're doing.

China had famines.

Venezuala had shortages.

Cuba had shortages.

Russia had shortages.

It's the same cycle of stupidity. Fire all the competent people, put idiots in charge, and ignore the simplest concept of supply and demand in exchange for the whims of some despot idiot who thinks they know better then human nature and the laws of scarcity.

End result is you always have too much of the wrong thing, and not enough of the right thing, and you end with the poor starving far worse then they would in a capitalist country.

I assume because it's recognition of how important your work actually is.

I don't think Americans can accept these titles, but I assume it's something like getting a nobel prize. What you do might be more important then the award, but the prize is just a feather on the cap for how important that work may be.

Venezuala's the result of nationalizing foreign companies, replacing the employees with party loyalists who's only qualification is "They support the man in charge", and then acting pikachu faced when the country has shortages and has sanctions from the US that make it difficult to find trade deals.

Plus treating the oil money like a piggy bank to fund their social programs, and since they clearly are way too smart for the competent naysayers they removed, their management of said social programs is also bungled.

Also the issue where they over relied on oil money and as a result their economy becomes stagnate and they go into debt because their other industries get underdeveloped due to all the oil focus.

The truth is that a specific genderfluid student is a rapist, the victim's father was forcibly removed from the school board meeting, and the school administrator lied to parents and the school board about the rape taking place, sending the student to another school where [pronoun here] commited another rape.

https://www.loudoun.gov/SpecialGrandJury

One may even make the case that it was a specific biologically male student taking advantage of school policies to harass and assault female students and their actual identification doesn't matter, while the school superintendent failed to notify the police and school board because they were afraid of PR pushback.

The student was/is genderfluid but that still doesn't excuse the fact that the superintendent lied to the school board and made the first girl's father into a public pariah before the truth came out and another girl in a different school was raped by the same rapist.

That should be the story, that sexual orientation is not an excuse for covering for a rapist. You can't both promote tolerance and protect people who violate consent.

https://www.loudoun.gov/SpecialGrandJury

It sounds like whoever murdered the 4 people was super angry.

That just makes me wonder if it was personal (or at least someone who had an argument with one or all the victims), or if it was just some random psycho who let loose.

2 victims knew each other from high school, the one dude (I assume) is the boyfriend, and the other is somebody else.

I'm kinda hoping that the police know who the suspect is, but don't want to say anything because they don't want them to make a run for it.

Sure, but I was moreso refering to the group JPEG, not the most recent format.

I might be blaming the standards bodies themselves when the patent holders might be more responsible.

There's a whole PDF/slideshow about the patent troubles encountered by the original JPEG group, namely that Patents still covered a bunch of stuff for years and none of the patent holders waived their right to sue, so what happens is the people using the jpeg format have to pay any of the relevent patent holders to use the format.

The original goal of JPEG was apparently to be royalty free, but it couldn't do that with the patents holders around at the time.

https://www.ecma-international.org/wp-content/uploads/IS-presentation-to-JTC1SC29WG1-regarding-JPEG25-celebration.pdf

Plus AVIF exists, and is created by a group that includes google.

I feel like JPEG/MPEG/ etc are holdovers from when large patent bodies created formats with the expectation that they'd all get revenue from the licensing, while the AOM creates royalty free codecs since they don't care about the licensing fees, because they're more concerned with formats that do what they want and don't require paying out of pocket for encoding/decoding in high demand.

Plus the licensing fees creates a barrier to adoption, since people will go with whatever the cheapest/free-est solution is.