This law came around before DNA sequencing was common, they probably had some kind of archaic law making it hard to pin paternity on an unmarried father since you couldn’t just order a DNA test to show who created the baby.
LimeZest
joined 7 months ago
You are comparing a daily active users figure to a monthly active users figure. Truth Social has closer to 2 million active users overall, but only 100,000 on a given day. It’s still really low for a social media company with such a popular public figure at the forefront, but it isn’t lower than Mastodon. The valuation is absolutely absurd regardless as there are so many red flags in their own SEC filings.
It is relevant in that the loser is the elected nominee for his party and has many people who look up to him and follow his lead. If the loser accepts his defeat gracefully, the people who look up to him are more likely to accept the results and less likely to cause trouble. It doesn’t matter who decides the results and how non-corrupt they are if a corrupt loser sows doubt in the results and makes his followers think they have been cheated, particularly when the majority of his party joins in instead of ostracizing him for being a liar.
He can still run for president from prison. It has been done before.
They sell raw milk products at one of the grocery stores near me, but the people interested in raw milk products are very enthusiastic about it and willing to pay a premium to get sick, so the producers don’t hide the lack of pasteurization. It is all over the labels and more expensive than the pasteurized products.
A family of four doesn’t need four kitchens and four bedrooms, so not every cost scales linearly as a household increases in size. Some things are also cheaper in bulk than if you are just buying enough for one person. I do think a family of four probably needs more than twice what a single person needs, however, but I am no expert on this. In any case, housing costs have drastically outpaced wages and safety nets, which is massively evident by all the homeless camps everywhere.
Investors holding DWAC pre-merger would’ve been able to sell it off as DJT as soon as the merger was complete. Trump can’t sell his shares for six months after the merger without permission from his company’s board.
Instead of buying regular shares of DWAC, some people invested in warrants which can be turned into ordinary shares in the future at a price of $11.50/warrant. Those can’t be exercised until 30 days after the merger and are trading under the ticker DJTWW. DWACW (now DJTWW) was trading at $20 just before the merger, so people who bought at that price essentially locked in a future price of $31.50/share of DJT once the added cost of exercising the warrants is factored in. That could’ve been a nice windfall if DJT maintained its spike of $70 after the merger, but it isn’t much of a deal at today’s closing price of $26.61 and they still have about ten more days to go until they can trade in their warrants. Most of the time the warrants traded at a much lower price than $20, however. Whoever was selling when they were at $20 probably made a decent profit.
Even if Trump does win, posts are very easy to screenshot and share on other platforms. There isn’t a big incentive to get it from truth social instead of waiting for people to share his ramblings all over the news and their preferred social platforms. I never had a Twitter account either, but I saw Trump’s ridiculous tweets shared around all the time. Most people won’t need to go there to see what he is up to. He will get a bump, but not enough to make it the new Twitter.
Probably so it is harder to hide anything under it.
Some mobile interfaces really are terrible for trying to navigate to a precise part in the middle of a link to change it. It’s way easier with a keyboard and mouse. Better yet, desktop browsers tend to have a lot more availability of browser extensions than mobile browsers and I would be really surprised if there weren’t already extensions out there that will automatically correct this problem for desktop users and forward them to the correct version of the page. Wikipedia really should fix this issue though.
Corporate greed of the insurance companies plays a part, but it is complicated. There is also the skyrocketing size and price of cars driven by auto manufacturer greed (big luxury SUVs and trucks are way more profitable so they’ve mostly quit making small cars) paired with decades of transportation network design that is hostile toward facilitating any mode of transportation outside of autos and also drives preference for larger vehicles.
Our car-first transportation system encourages a snowball effect where having huge cars all around you incentivizes you to upgrade to a larger car because you have no visibility in a small car once half the other drivers have big ones. Additionally, walking and biking become less safe because the cars’ blind spots get huge and you can’t make eye contact to tell if half the drivers see you when you walk/bike through your neighborhood. You also can’t see around large vehicles at intersections to tell if a crossing has anyone else approaching, so you might as well hop in a car instead of trying to get around via cheaper transportation modes. Tearing a hole in your pants by tripping over a dog while walking is cheaper to patch or replace than damage to a car from swerving your vehicle into a pole while attempting not to run over the dog in your path. People are more likely to end up in the latter circumstance when there are no safe foot or bike paths to get around their neighborhood, so that factors into the cost of insurance.
You shouldn’t need a two (or more) ton personal vehicle to safely take care of small local errands, but our cities are designed where that is the safest option. The more weight something has, the more momentum it has at a given speed, requiring a longer stopping distance, reducing your ability to react to hazards in time, and increasing the amount of energy transferred (and the resultant damage) during a collision.
Incentivizing smaller, lighter transportation options would help from both a public safety and insurance cost standpoint because all the safety features in the world can’t negate the basic laws of physics regarding things like momentum and visibility. The hazard large modern vehicles pose to others within their vicinity also suppresses cheaper modes of transit which increases the frequency that expensive vehicles are on the road, leading to even more vehicle collisions and insurer costs. Cars don’t need to be abolished, but they shouldn’t be the only tool we have left in the toolbox, transportation-wise.
Without the divorce, a pregnant woman may not have access to enough assets to move out and get into a safe and stable living situation. Women are most likely to be murdered while they are pregnant, forcing them to stay married to an abuser can be a life or death matter for them. Paying child support to provide for a child born to your spouse from an affair is a hardship, but it isn’t trapping someone with the person most likely to murder them during the most vulnerable time in their life. You also assumed based on nothing that men are forced to pay for their wife’s affair children for the duration of their childhoods, but a quick search shows that Missouri allows husbands to deny paternity and even provides free paternity testing through the Family Support Division.
You really do come across as a cruel and heartless person when you claim a true article about women’s physical safety during a vulnerable time in their lives is a lower priority than a completely fictional scenario revolving around non-existent laws and their fictional financial exploitation of men. There is a time and place to talk about grievances men have with our paternity laws, but choosing this story when your assumption was dead wrong is in exceptionally poor taste.