Permanently Deleted
Stay with your parents.
If you can afford to move to a new place on your own with what you make right now, you can afford to put that same money into a savings account. That money in the bank is far more useful if something happens to you, your kid, or your parents. Figure out what you'd pay in a new house, childcare, mortgage, the whole thing, subtracting what you currently pay, and set it aside.
Also, I assume whatever your dad would've given you is some kind of retirement fund, and while that's very nice of him to offer it, it'd be better for him to still have that later, for all the same reasons it's good for you to save.
If it's not a retirement fund, then it either is in some kind of high interest savings account, or should be. You can take his example or you both can look into that together, and set that up for his current money and your future money.
Money aside, having family support is worth so much more than it seems. I have a child the same age, too, and the difference between me being able to go do something, anything, from see a movie to shop to go on a date with my wife, and be able to leave my kid at home and know she's in good hands, it's worth so much more than it seems like it should be. My advice is even if you decide to move out, do it when your kid is more independent, and you have an even better financial situation.
I'd never heard of it so I tried it out, it seemed fine until the end where it listed about ten different distros with no real way to differentiate them.
Like, yeah, mint and Ubuntu and elementary and zorin and xubuntu all work for my use cases. I wanted it to give me a reason why one is better than another.
So, yeah, can't recommend that website. It's trying to help, but it won't, really.
They support the Roman empire and believe it to be superior.
This shakes that belief.
Same. I bought my house a year before the housing market went up. Paid 110,000, now my bank says it's worth 250,000.
Honestly, as cool as it is for me, that's just not fair to everyone else. We barely made enough for the 110k loan, and this house is barely big enough for everyone. No fucking way could we have gotten 250k in any sort of loan.
Also when I say barely I mean barely, the seller actually went down to 110 from 120 because that was the max we could get, and we knew him personally. So on top of the price spike, we actually couldn't afford our house, if I hadn't made friends with the guy previously.
I do.
I mean none of it is good, but there's cat food that genuinely tastes bad.
Aren't you a little curious?
You could call it c/puzzlemethis, maybe. It'd sound like "riddle me this" so the purpose is pretty easy to figure out, but it also says that this isn't just riddles.
Luckily my model of other people's model of me has lost enough genuine character that it's more of a trope so my model of someone else's model of me has like 3 models that apply to everyone and that's so reductive I ignore them.
Here's the text.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Impeachment is important and it should've happened, but the senate literally can't do anything except remove him from office, and the impeachment text specifically allows for regular law to also apply to whoever got impeached.
So no, we do not have this covered by impeachment, and no former president is immune from regular legal proceedings.
Current presidents are, though, through supreme court precedent and the self-pardon. Former presidents should not automatically get this benefit though.
They're gonna flap around too but nah this is leg day. Flying starts with a big jump. Especially when the wings are also new, you want as much height as you can when you start.
Maybe but if so it's a shame, so someone still failed.
No.
Of course even the president has a right to due process, but no. If the president commits treason, he doesn't get to be immune to that. A trial is warranted and an arrest if found guilty is correct.
Yes, corruption could hypothetically rig such a trial. But a president immune from the consequences of his actions means there only needs to be one person corrupted to ruin a whole branch of government, instead of the hundreds it would take Congress to rig a trial.
Zigbee is a mesh network, but Zigbee with mqtt has a hub that stores messages. I haven't used it myself but it would mean that if, say, a Zigbee bulb was routing a message on the mesh network through a smart switch across the room to the hub, and the switch dropped the connection for a moment, a hub reply could be dropped entirely. Just briefly, but thatd be the intermittent issues that people are describing here.
MQTT stores all those messages in the hub though and makes the light bulb check in to get the messages, so if a light bulb were to do that and the switch disconnected, the light bulb would notice the failure and just retry, and the message is still on the mqtt hub to be redelivered.
Dunno if this description is exactly correct, but it sounds like it from my brief look on Wikipedia on communication differences.
No that seems likely.
Evidence that would damn them here being in a court record makes it admissible elsewhere for a crime that isn't even prosecuted yet.
They're cutting off their foot to save their leg, here, since this isn't particularly secretive, seeing how we know about it.
Companies don't get jail time.
Sure, technically an individual could, but generally the actual destruction is an employee doing what they're told to do. They're somewhat complicit but the real problem is the c-suite people.
I unfortunately don't know when this last happened or any specific details on what the penalty would be, but I feel fairly confident that this law falls under the "cost of doing business" part of illegal corporate activity. I wish it didn't.
The previous Pedro Pascal, I guess.
Nah it's illegal to deliberately destroy data to impede investigations. You don't need to have an open investigation for that to be the case.
It remains legal to get rid of old files to free up space or if you genuinely believe they aren't necessary, though, so you need to prove intent.
If there's a subpeona or something, their destruction is itself a crime, but under this law, its the intent to defraud the courts that's illegal, and that intent is always illegal.
The law exists specifically for this situation. Purging important business documents preemptively is clearly not OK.
Citation: https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1519-destruction-alteration-or-falsification-of-records/
Well clearly the dog was religious and preferred to eat things that were free of sin.
Crossbow would be better than a bow I feel. You can load your shot preemptively, like a gun, but it isn't a gun.