You may be able to see your kids again. It doesn't matter that they hate you, you hate yourself too, anyway.
IHeartBadCode
joined 2 years ago
Is currently running VLC.
"We only need one official sub!!" — Average Kbin/Lemmy newb
"First time?" — Average Linux distro enjoyer.
It's changed who she is in their minds, and it clearly has an impact on her relationship with them
Had you not been straight with them, this would have been your outcome too. And just like cheating, lying or distorting the truth eventually gets found out. There's plenty that I'm sure who would get on here and indicate age as being the factor. Age plays a role for sure, but even if your children were 7 and 10, they deserve the truth albeit with less detail or more explaining depending on the child.
But there are very few people on this planet that you should strive to shoot straight with. Your children are part of that group. So is your spouse, which is why cheating hits so hard when it happens. So, you will do right to be straight with your children about the situation.
They stay in touch with her and do things with her, but it's clearly out of obligation (at least it's clear to me)
Remember that she's the parent, she's going to need to be the one who repairs the relationship. There's no point in asking your children to be more adult than your former wife. Your children may be doing out of an obligation to maintain some semblance of normalcy, may be doing it out of respect for you and not knowing other means to show that. But your children are going to have the relationship with your former wife, that your former wife forms with them going forward. Relationship inertia is a thing and your former wife would be wise to use that to help repair the broken trust and the attempt to be deceitful with them. That inertia eventually will run out of steam and if your former wife spends too long fuming over the revelation, she'll lose any grace she's been given to help in the repair. Remember, your kids are smart enough to understand that mom wanted to "hide" this from them. That's in their heads be it they say it or not.
I feel bad for her, I really do.
Then you would do well to remind her that she's got to take control of this situation and earnestly repair this relationship with her children. If you do care still for her in some fashion, then reminding her she's got repair the trust she has torched with her children and not attempt to hide from it. I don't know your wife, but ultimately, whatever relationship she has with her children is exactly the one SHE CREATED.
I believe the kids have a right to know why their lives were suddenly and completely changed out of the blue
If you value your relationship with your children, you would do well to not lie or betray their trust. Especially now. It's easy for them to become really jaded from this experience and see faults in all of their parents. It's a popular idea that there's the good parent and the bad parent, but there is parent A, parent B, and each child. You are all your own separate beings. Again relationship inertia has them "flock" to you at the time, but as this whole thing ages, it'll start to take a personality of its own and affect how they see paternal relationships in general.
It's good that you have empathy for your former wife and perhaps if you wish to help the relationship between your kids and their mother, you can share your empathy that you have as a guidance for your children. Best of luck.
Yep. Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction, and the understanding is that the point when the 5th attaches is when a jury is sworn or the first witness is heard. In mistrial, the fifth does not attach so long as there is minimum delay between juries and the prosecutor has not had enough time to strengthen their case.
If the federal government wants to disqualify Judge Cannon, they must do so before this moment of attachment. Because if there is judicial misconduct the case can be halted but there's no way that the disqualification process would satisfy minimum disruption, and thus Trump would be found not-guilty on a technicality with no possible way to bring back the Federal charges he faces.
Also something, the number of people delaying care due to costs is still increasing YoY.
Some forego treatment altogether. Even myself have decided that if I am ever diagnosed with advanced stage disease to just die rather roll the dice and be sacked with seven to eight digits of debt on a, “maybe you’ll still be alive and even then you’ll just be a shell of the person you were before.”
If we’re going to keep the medical system the US has, then I honestly really want assisted suicide as well. Not this palliative, let’s keep you drugged up while you decay bullshit. No, I want in the US the ability to see the choice of $1,000,000+ maybe you’ll live versus $250 we put you in a box and suck out all the oxygen and replace it with nitrogen.
I’m not saying everyone is going to pick the death box, but after two major healthcare things in my life that I’ve gotten through, I sure as shit am not going through a third. Be that via an approved or unapproved manner. There’s just no way this system is going to put me through that again.
All of this article completely ignores why manufacturing left in the first place. By the 1970s Japan's manufacturing quality revolution put financial pressures on American corporations to become more competitive. As more globalization occurred, the ability to economically compete with foreign economies became more prominent in management philosophy. Pair this with the invention that corporations exist to drive shareholder value, increasing shareholder value became the primary concern driving corporate strategies.
Companies who listen to shareholders and not markets become asset-light with high risk aversion. Few companies want to weather a storm not because the employees don't want to work there, but because any slight can be perceived in the market as a weaken position. There has to be a fundamental disconnect from the companies and the investors. We cannot be a stable manufacturing economy if the primary driver is speculation.
With weak labor protections currently prevalent in the United States, there's little possibility to buy the notion that employees and their product will be placed higher than speculative investors who are completely disinterested in the particulars themselves. So long as boards listen to financial gurus who prognosticate from their Excel tea leaves and market models, and less to middle management who just want the company to do well, there's zero ways manufacturing will attract the numbers required for a complete return to domestic production. If we want the people to work, we must give the people the power to dictate that work. Anything less is sure fire means for a return to whence we came.
I will leave this article from the Software Freedom Conservancy which gives an analysis of the legal impact of the new terms of the RHEL CCS distribution in terms of the GPL.
In short, it is as you say, not distributing to the public at large is only a violation of the spirit of the GPL but not an actual legal violation. As for redistribution, the new terms stipulate that RedHat CANNOT STOP YOU from redistributing the code (unless you forgot to remove their icons/artwork/copyrightable stuff), but doing so will put you under consideration for a 30-day notice that your ability to access binaries and sources will be revoked.
Additionally, the SFC has gone ahead and assumed that RedHat will have little inclination to sell a single license to Rocky or Alma for them to them attempt a systematic way to get around their RHEL CCS distribution model. In short, RedHat has come full circle in implementing the full breadth of their hostilities towards downstream projects of their RHEL.
I know RedHat folks justify it as "None of the downstream projects helped patched anything. That the downstream projects were the ones being hostile and RedHat is just finally responding in like." I think the "none" might be over exaggerated, but RedHat has indeed submitted easily over 90% of the patches to RHEL's code base. That said, working with the community to help foster more contributions is the correct answer, not taking the ball and going home.
All in all, RedHat is basically allowed to do what it is doing. But everyone is free to not like this path RedHat has taken themselves down. I mean, there's a lot of "questionable" spirit of FOSS that multiple companies that contribute to open source do with their product. cough Java cough.
Ayo, NP broacketo! Upper 80 is all 0. Then it's FFFF:C0A8:14. Igotchu!
Freight train carrying hot asphalt, molten sulfur plunges into the Yellowstone River as bridge fails
That might be the case but this might have been one of the bridges in the 2022 flood that came through Yellowstone. The flooding was such that many bridges had their piers scoured and even a brand new bridge wouldn't survive if its piers had been significantly impacted.
So yeah, this could be an infrastructure issues, in fact it's likely. But that area had an unprecedented flood that we still do not know the full extent of damage done. It could have been a brand new bridge or the flooding could have exacerbated a pre-existing condition. It's a bit early to point to the main contributing factor that led up to this event.
That said, this nation is still in need of a massive infusion of funds into the various infrastructure that has been on perpetual deferred maintenance. If this nation does not implement a sustained long-term commitment to fully fund infrastructure and put it above petty politics, then our economy, our industry, and more importantly our way of life will massively suffer.
Major questions doctrine:
If a law is so broad that it brings about questions on how one should implement it, rather than asking Congress to fix it, SOCTUS gets to dictate what specifically the answer to the question is. But if Congress doesn't like that answer SCOTUS gives, Congress may pass a law being more specific. That is, the Court isn't indicating that the law, ruling, or order is unconstitutional, they are ruling that it is too broad in scope and that SCOTUS is "fixing it" for the time being. But Congress is openly invited to completely override anything they've said.
Now of course, "Major Questions" brings about the obvious. "What is the definition of too broad?" And of course there's all kinds of precedent on that as well and SCOTUS saying "well this is broad, but this isn't broad". Since the WV vs EPA (2022) case, SCOTUS Conservatives have gotten a bit more ..... (and it may shock those that I'm using this word) "liberal" in what they consider "broad". And the liberal justices are more than happy to point this out each and every time to the Conservatives:
— Justice Kagan (brutally assaulting and ripping the Conservatives' jugular while dissenting in WV v. EPA (cir. 2022))
So it looks like we're in for a whole lot of "quite a precedent" as the Conservative Justices look posed to whip out the Major Questions doctrine to be allowed to "double think". Major Questions isn't usually used this often and by golly the Conservative Justices seem posed to right that perceived wrong, apparently. And the Liberal Justices have indicated, it's not wise to over use this doctrine. The 6-3 bench isn't forever.