@hellznobro @HazelAppleyard We could argue C is wrong because it has shaded 1 side of a 6 sided glass cube and 1 side of solid cube. Thereby 1/6=1/6.
English
DMK
151 posts
@HazelAppleyard It's C & only that. It's the only one where the two shapes are the same size. The others have a larger circle & a larger rectangle, so the area of the shaded portion differs.
English
@GarfinkelCoach @derek_debus Agreed. Journalists may need to disclose their diligence process but not sources. Case law places a lot of trust in journalists with regard to public officials.
English
I don’t think the law requires the journalist to disclose who the anonymous sources are. As long as the journalist test on their due diligence to determine that the information is true, then, as I understand it, the journalist and their publisher are free from liability about liable and defamation.
I get that you don’t think this is fair. But I don’t think what you’re arguing would hold up in court, based on how I was trained as a journalist.
English
As an award winning attorney, it is my view that many journalists are Not Great at understanding complex legal issues but are Very Good at having a high degree of confidence in their opinions, nonetheless
Michael Patrick Leahy@michaelpleahy
BREAKING: As an award winning journalist, it is my view that Kash Patel has a very strong defamation case against The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick. This morning he filed a $250 million defamation case against them. tennesseestar.com/justice/leahy-…
English
@GarfinkelCoach @derek_debus Thats the issue though isn’t it. Publish something salacious entirely based on anonymous sources then have the defamed person have to both prove the information are false AND show actual malice while the Atlantic claims sources are protected.
English
There was a time when I was an award-winning journalist. My rule of thumb for what made something libelous or defamatory was the essence of NYT vs. Sullivan--knowledge that what was published was in fact false, and/or published with reckless disregard for the truth.
I have since learned that it's harder public figures to win these cases than everyday people.
I get the impression that the reporter and the lawyers at the Atlantic checked all the boxes in multiplicate before publishing the story. I doubt the lawsuit has any chance at all.
But we shall see...
English
@JoyceWhiteVance The Atlantic cannot use discovery to prove their published claims are true. That would imply any defamation defendant can publish whatever they want then use discovery as a fishing expedition to prove their claims.
English
@AgnolettiArrab @rick_alpert @XochitlHinojosa Not exactly. Plaintiff cannot prove a negative. Because Plaintiff is a public figure they only need to prove actual malice. Defense has to prove their statements are materially factual.
English
@rick_alpert @XochitlHinojosa In a defamation suit, it’s the plaintiff who has the burden of proof. And shield laws exist to prevent forced disclosure of confidential sources. DC also has one of the strongest Anti-SLAPP laws in the country.
English
He realizes there will be discovery, right?
Two things of note: 1) he doesn’t deny the drinking. 2) it was FBI agents that sounded the alarm.
Aaron Rupar@atrupar
BARTIROMO: So you're gonna sue them? KASH PATEL: Absolutely. It's coming tomorrow BARTIROMO: Tomorrow you will be dropping a lawsuit against The Atlantic? PATEL: Yes I will. For defamation
English
Giving away 2 things, the winner takes home both:
- 1 Michigan natty replica trophy (12”)
- 1 Dusty May Bobble Head
Idc about followers so all you have to do to enter is like the tweet and reply with your fav Michigan basketball player of all time.
agprinting24.etsy.com/listing/448654…
English
hi could i pls humbly request pet photos? dogs especially but all pets are appreciated & welcome ❤️ i miss my girl
English
@BMF_Gannicus @Cairo_xprsk 4 is not part of the existing pattern. You cannot just add it because you think it should be there.
English
@Cairo_xprsk The multiplier is decreasing by 1 each time, and it always equals n + 3.
So the rule is:
n = n × (n + 3)
Now apply it to 3:
3 × (3 + 3) = 3 × 6 = 18
Answer: 3 = 18
English
@LemonLamplight @Jbuck9797 @Mishi_2210 I subtracted at each step. Easy to see pattern was 8, 16, 32. Next would be 64. 64+63=127
English
@Jbuck9797 @Mishi_2210 That's the same thing. You're just adding the 1 to the number first, instead of doubling it and THEN adding 1.
8 + 7 is the same as 7 + 7 + 1
16 + 15 is the same as 15 + 15 + 1
English
@BrickCenter_ Great display of terrible offensive basketball. 5 on 4 advantage and no motion on offense. Everyone standing around. Take 2 terrible 3 point shots before someone eventually drives the lane.
English
LeBron made the Lakers play 4-on-5 for an ENTIRE possession because he was trying to stat pad 😭
This is SHAMELESS
English
@JPaigeWWJ @SenatorSlotkin You’ll never get details to support her party provided talking points.
English
It was true last year, when I talked to Fox News, and it is true now. The SAVE Act makes it harder for eligible Michiganders to vote.
English
@shipwreckedcrew LeBron says basketball is too hard now compared to the 90s. Apparently the modern basketball player has regressed not developed.
English
It should acknowledge the advance of time and development of the modern athlete.
Soccer and baseball use smaller fields/goals for younger players.
Basketball should make the court 30 feet longer and 12 feet wider, raise the hoop to 12 feet for college and pros, move the 3 pt line back 4 feet, make the free thrown 18 feet, and make the lane 4 feet wider.
High school and NBA courts are basically the same size -- NBA is 10 feet longer but same width.
Football needs to do the same thing -- 120 x 70 yard fields. Defensive players are so big and fast that the size of the field become an extra defender. Room in the middle of the field has simply evaporated.
David Marcus@BlueBoxDave
I think the NBA should eliminate the 3 pointer. It would be a vastly more attractive sport.
English
We are now in a full-blown constitutional crisis.
That’s why following the arrests of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, I sent three separate letters demanding the dismissal of all charges, a congressional hearing, and a DOJ Inspector General investigation.
The Constitution demands accountability. Oversight is not optional.
English
@ProfMJCleveland I want a car that does not require removing front bumper to change a headlight bulb.
English
Folks, what do you think? I think Danny is wrong: That people want cars where they can easily turn the heat or air on and can replace the battery themselves without needing to look up the secret coding of how many times you need to beep the horn or whatever to reset the car.
Danny@QuidamVeritas
I have been considering this problem - greater electronics in cars, which makes them more costly to build, maintain and repair. The idea of an old school car (muscle car, of course) with limited electronics sounds great in theory. There is a nostalgia for a time when things were far less expensive, worked well and could be fixed easily. Unfortunately, I respectfully dissent from the proposed solution. I don’t believe enough American consumers will actually buy those cars. The consumer doesn’t want the basic, no-frills trim level. The consumer wants proximity sensors, heated seats and steering wheels, and backup cameras. They can and should take out a lot of the dashboard junk - distracting screens, but power steering is not an option, nor are electronic windows. Americans demand the convenience and luxury of the modern automobile, and expect every generation to come with even more gadgets. Imagine no satellite radio and no bluetooth. Such vehicles do exist. People generally don’t want them. I’m sorry to say, but people want the new shiny, advanced cars we make today.
English
@AmberWoods100 Congress has required release of all Epstein files. Julie is not a victim so her name is not redacted. If you look at the document you may notice the passenger name is redacted. Julie wasn’t being surveilled. DOJ was collecting evidence of one of the victims.
English
Miami Herald investigative journalist Julie K. Brown has expressed valid concerns about her 2019 travel details being publicly disclosed in the latest file drop from the Department of Justice.
Why was she being surveilled? She is a private citizen.
English
The government should not be tracking journalists movements and travel.
The DOJ’s latest release should bring about new questions about surveillance and who is being protected.
English
@elizaorlins The passenger name is redacted. Thats who DOJ was collecting information on. Julies name being present is just a byproduct of her buying the ticket.
English
This is so fucked. The Epstein files revealed something chilling: DOJ collected the private airline booking records of a journalist who covered the Epstein case & attached them to 2019 subpoenas.
She did NOTHING WRONG. Yet her movements were tracked and stored by the government.
English
@shipwreckedcrew The passenger name is redacted but not her name. It would appear she bought the ticket for another different person.
English
Now you can tell us if you booked that flight for yourself, or you booked that flight for someone else.
DOJ can acquire booking information by either the name of the passenger or the name of the person who bought the ticket.
Are the facts that you booked this travel for another person?
And that other person might have been of interest to DOJ?
julie k. brown@jkbjournalist
Does somebody at the DOJ want to tell me why my American Airlines booking information and flights in July 2019 are part of the Epstein files (attached to a grand jury subpoena)? As the flight itinerary includes my maiden name (and I did book this flight) why was the DOJ monitoring me?
English
