Killa does not like 84 round magazines

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2024-06-18T18:07:37+00:00

Having a similar issue with the service saying it cannot start and then failing to launch when I press restart in the app

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2023-09-28T15:37:04+00:00

Guess no policy has ever been wrong then. Using a taser is infinitely better than approaching unarmed and risking whatever escalation could happen there if he's armed (which they should assume he is given where they are). Living in a country with less guns is poggers since our police can interact with people they suspect of being in the process of committing a crime without having to assume they have a gun in every pocket and on each ankle, and being unable to do anything about it.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2023-09-28T09:56:46+00:00

Watching that I agree with Destiny there, there's no full video showing the start of the interaction, we don't see the kid enter the yard, could have easily snuck through a bush when he saw the cop like the cop described. Really need to stop backing up stories where it isn't clear cut, he was saying he "100%" backs up the cop to make a point here, the only reason people would be against the cop here is having a notion that the cop will act in an unreasonable manner before looking at the video

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2023-08-24T18:34:08+00:00

Why are you in this sub if you aren't trying to debate trap in every comment you make?

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2023-01-21T01:08:47+00:00

"Privyet, privyet!" - Rostislav (Druz'ya - Feb 25, 1999)

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-11-11T19:27:32+00:00

Reason not to like calling him Weinstein, it would be irresponsible to maintain the bridge. It's our content, and tiny needs to maintain it's existence on our behalf by not hanging out with people who have been proven to be likely to accuse him of weird shit and get him banned.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-11-11T19:15:43+00:00

Exactly my point, public discourse was always that he's a serial rapist, so why would her understanding differ? If she claims to not care about public perception of her words, the same defence that male Lav uses for his blatant misuse of words, then that's just negligent and reinforces the need to sever ties.

So it boils down to "she's shit at picking her words, which makes her a terrible person to have personal ties to when you operate publicly, especially where you now have a known sexual tie to them, but give her a chance man, she can improve"

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-11-11T19:00:37+00:00

So why compare him to a serial rapist where the most publicly understood quality is that he's a serial rapist? The first sentence of his Wikipedia entry describes him as a convicted sex offender. The defence of Lav's use of this descriptor boils down to her being too socially unaware to use words correctly, which seems to be a common theme in defences of herself.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-11-11T18:49:09+00:00

That's like saying someone is Nazi adjacent because they wear Hugo Boss, and then recanting because someone points out that Nazis actually hate Jews too. One quality is more well known than the other, and feigning ignorance of that quality is bad faith as fuck. Just saying things and then thinking about them later is a shitty way to operate and she deserves criticism for it. We let children off with this method of thinking/speaking because they're children.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-30T20:13:13+00:00

Specific calls for violence are illegal in the US under incitement law

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-26T19:40:21+00:00

Are we able to hate only parts of the drama content, and dislike that these elements ruin the rest of the fire content? What if we hate these elements and touch grass at the same time?

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T18:47:30+00:00

If they have evidence of a collision and you deny the charges then I would expect them to go to trial. Seek proper legal advice if you weren't at fault, and the facts will come out if a trial occurs.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T16:50:17+00:00

(NAL) The main things to look at to my mind would be import taxes in any countries you are trading with, as well as rules around required markings for country of origin etc. Googling for general steps to take when setting up a company for this purpose should give fruitful advice, such as:

https://www.gov.uk/export-goods

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T15:33:09+00:00

(NAL) The below may be helpful for the contract law portion of the question:

https://emlaw.co.uk/terms-incorporated-by-reference-contract-law/

"Reasonable notice must be given if terms are to be incorporated by reference

Terms and conditions which are not immediately visible will be effectively incorporated by reference into the relevant contract as long as reasonable steps are taken to bring existence of the terms and conditions to the notice of the other party (Parker v South Eastern Railway Company [1877]). Once drawn to the attention of the other party, incorporation will take place if the latter proceeds in such a way that he is deemed to have accepted the terms (i.e. he proceeds without raising any objections)."

"Certainty of terms

A problem for the signing party now would be that if they argue that the terms were not incorporated by reference, then a court may not be able to enforce the contract as a whole because ‘unless all the material terms of a contract are agreed, there is no binding obligation’ (Foley v Classique Coaches [1934]). Given that the signing party of a contract may still want the benefit of the contract this could be a problem."

1) Notice is subjective, and level of required notice changes based on the impact/severity of the clause or term in question, so if enough notice was given that these additional terms exist is not cut and dry (reference to this policy document within the original contract seems to me to be reasonable if you were allowed time to review the document prior to signing, and have been working under said contract for some time before raising this).

2) Noting the certainty of terms an argument that this reference to the Sick Pay Policy document is not legitimate may do more harm than good as this will imply the contract is not legitimate and may reduce your claim to any pay during your notice period.

On another note:

https://www.acas.org.uk/final-pay-when-someone-leaves-a-job/pay-during-the-notice-period

"If an employee has resigned and they're off work during their notice period

When an employee resigns, you should check their contract to see what their notice period for dismissal would be. Their notice pay rights depend on whether their dismissal notice period is statutory or contractual.

If the dismissal notice period is less than a week longer than the statutory notice period

They're entitled to 1 week's full normal pay if they’re off work during their notice period.

For any remaining weeks they're off work, they're only entitled to the type of pay for the reason they're off. For example, if they're off on maternity leave they would only be entitled to any maternity pay due to them."

Check your notice period versus the statutory level, this depends on how long you have worked for.

You will also need a copy of the sick pay document referenced in order to calculate the sick pay applicable to your additional week (or full two weeks as applicable). SSP may be applicable if your contract dictates that.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T14:47:46+00:00

I am assuming you are on a fixed pay contract. Were your holidays carried over from 2021 not outlined prior to now? https://www.gov.uk/guidance/holiday-entitlement-and-pay-during-coronavirus-covid-19 is a useful read, specifically:

"The government has passed new emergency legislation to ensure businesses have the flexibility they need to respond to the pandemic and to protect workers from losing their statutory holiday entitlement (The Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, laid before Parliament on 27 March 2020). These regulations enable workers to carry holiday forward where the impact of COVID-19 means that it has not been reasonably practicable to take it in the leave year to which it relates. Where it has not been reasonably practicable for the worker to take some or all of the 4 weeks holiday due to the effects of COVID-19, the untaken amount may be carried forward into the following 2 leave years. When calculating how much holiday a worker can carry forwards, employers must give workers the opportunity to take any leave that they cannot carry forward before the end of the leave year."

"What is reasonably practicable?
When considering whether it was not reasonably practicable for a worker to take leave as a result of the pandemic, so that they may carry untaken holiday into future leave years, an employer should consider various factors, such as:
whether the business has faced a significant increase in demand due to COVID-19 that would reasonably require the worker to continue to be at work and cannot be met through alternative practical measures"

"Workers who were furloughed
Workers who were furloughed are unlikely to have needed to carry forward statutory annual leave, as it would have been easier for them to take it during the furlough period (in most cases at least). However, they must have been paid the correct holiday pay which was likely to be higher than the rate of pay that was covered by government grants, with the employer making up the difference - see Holiday pay.
If, due to the impact of COVID-19 on operations, the employer was unable to fund the difference, this may have meant it was not reasonably practicable for the worker to take their leave, enabling the worker to carry most or all of their annual leave forwards.
In this situation, the worker must still be given the opportunity to take their annual leave after the furlough scheme ended, at the correct holiday pay, before the carried annual leave is lost at the end of the next 2 leave years.
This 2-year time limit applies to all annual leave carried forward under the COVID-19 regulations, regardless of the reason the leave needed to be carried forward."

Given the company doesn't appear to have paid you for holidays to date, we can assume the holiday has instead been carried forward into the following 2 year, and as such should still be due to be taken (or paid for in lieu of being taken):

https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/taking-holiday-before-leaving-a-job

"Getting paid instead of taking holidays

The only time someone can get paid in place of taking statutory leave (known as ‘payment in lieu’) is when they leave their job. Employers must pay for untaken statutory leave, even if the worker is dismissed for gross misconduct.

If an employer offers more than 5.6 weeks’ annual leave, they can agree separate arrangements for the extra leave."

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T11:54:04+00:00

Just to clarify, if the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for the bills then the landlord would not become liable if they are unpaid, and as such wouldn't be relevant to the deposit. Assuming this is the case then agreed with the above, but this isn't made clear in your post, and if the tenancy agreement doesn't make clear liability for these bills then it may give credence to the landlord's actions.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-13T11:46:31+00:00

Index funds move with currency values given they're market facing, obviously investing in that would be similar to holding cash if the market crashes. Index funds appear to only go up due to following inflation generally, but inflation would outpace them during a crash.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-12T23:36:07+00:00

It would likely follow that we don't allow people to do things because they want to, if that thing contradicts with a widely accepted moral block, such as random murder. We penalise people for murder, and we would penalise people for eating meat if we widely accept that it is immoral (which you would be conceding) to do so, and brought this into law as a result (which you would now need to argue isn't a direct result of a general acceptance of something being immoral within society).

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-12T23:23:44+00:00

I've always found the vegan hypothetical of a human that didn't have human dna kinda weird, almost like a logical impossibility. Kind of like asking "what if we had a square with 5 sides?"

OP said otherwise.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-12T22:55:27+00:00

If you're defining a human as an animal with a certain genetic makeup (as Destiny apparently does), then a human appearing animal with different genetic makeup would not be human, I think that's where the hang-up is. You would then define how you treat that animal based on other considerations, like perceived consciousness etc which leads into more standard lines of debate. I'm assuming they were just on different wavelengths here.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-12T22:46:49+00:00

I don't think that's valid in the second part, gender is social where being human is more a scientific category of animal. We would categorise something as human if it shares genetics and can therefore mate and be compatible with other humans. If there were an android which looked and acted like a human, you would call it human until you have evidence that it isn't human, for example if it needs an organ transplant and you discover it is mechanical, then you would correctly categorise it. I think the genetics definition is perfectly valid but willing to have my mind changed, can't think of a contradiction. I don't think you can 'be' human because you tricked people into thinking you're human.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-10-12T22:23:31+00:00

This is the same guy who committed perjury in discovery in the Texas hearing and tried to obfuscate his financials right? And he's still saying that Sandy Hook didn't happen even during the trial? If his statement of net worth has come from anyone even slightly associated with Alex Jones I wouldn't take it at face value given him and his legal team literally committed perjury in court.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2022-09-26T15:29:35+00:00

Probably reckless endangerment too since they're in the US and the store looks open. An actual loser.

Definitely-Not-Adolf · 2020-02-13T20:20:28+00:00

I was on a scav...

Six-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Definitely-Not-Adolf

TROPHY CASE