SatanicNotMessianic

No, that’s not a good example at all. This is closer to Orwell’s Newspeak, in which the government makes a word mean its opposite in order to force a change to the way people think.

A more relevant example is the use of the term “fake news.” The term was originally coined to talk about Trump making up “facts” on the fly that were completely disconnected from reality. Then Trump started using the term to refer to news articles he didn’t like.

He was even asked at one point if by “fake news” he meant the story wasn’t true. He said no - he meant he thinks it’s not something the media should be talking about, true or not.

For his fans and for the media in general, it’s come to mean “false,” but that’s an inversion of the original meaning, which is that Trump was inventing “facts,” mutated to Trump thinking the media shouldn’t be reporting on his extensive dealings with Russians, and finally being interpreted as challenging whether those fully documented and verified meetings even really happened.

First, squatters of this type are taking advantage of laws intended to protect renters from predatory landlords. Wherever you stand on people appropriating unused property, these laws need to stay in place even if they’re made more specific.

Second, news outlets like this will always quote a “guns and drugs” case and not the mom with three kids seeking employment or homeless vet cases.

Third, with security cams and doorbells being so cheap, there’s no reason why this should be an issue, especially for a large real estate rental company. That alone puts me in “cry me a river” mode. Notice again that the article lists interviews with individual homeowners but is actually profiling the impact on a rental company.

Yup - this is one that stayed with me. This has earned a place in internet history.

I immediately watched it. It’s great to have him back.

They thought about including a pendulum blade but they went back and forth on it.

Sorry - I should have realized others would point that out as well. I didn’t mean to pile on.

As long as you’re thinking about grad school, let me give you one more tip.

It’s often easier to get grad school paid for if you go into one of the hard sciences (eg physics, chemistry, biology). Where I taught, we gave every bio grad student a tuition waiver, room and board, and a (small) stipend.

You may be required to take a position as a teaching assistant (these suck, avoid if there are other options) or research assistant (this is what you want although they can suck in their own way). You’ll also have to come up with a song and dance about how your undergrad work puts you in a particularly good spot for research in [area] even though that wasn’t your major, and you will end up having to be able to pass the basic undergrad coursework in that area at some point.

CS grad programs (and many engineering programs in general) have a long list of applicants with checks in hand, and don’t need to grant stipends and such. You may still be competitive for them and should apply, but I’ll tell you that a candidate with an undergrad degree in CS with a PhD in astrophysics applying for a job as a data scientist is going to the front of the line.

FAANG manager here.

First, I’d advise to manage expectations when it comes to remote internships. There might be some companies offering them, but there’s possibly going to be a lot of tradeoffs. Larger companies that hire summer interns will often offer relocation, housing, and salary. We do it because we use the internship program to find new hires. Interns get an onboarding experience into corporate culture and a chance to work with mentors on a deliverable product that will be presented to a corporate audience. Not all interns get an offer, but the point of the program is to find candidates.

With that out of the way and assuming you’re a US citizen with a good GPA, also consider looking into things like the National labs programs. They also offer competitive salaries, relo, and housing (iirc). Other government agencies probably have similar programs in place. If you have a research interest you’re interested in pursuing at the graduate level, make sure to mention that as well as any relevant work.

Neither the top tier companies nor government programs generally work with recruiters, and especially not with interns, and most especially not with undergraduates. Like someone else said, you’re probably a bit late off the mark for intern programs for this year (but it doesn’t hurt to look). On the other hand, you might have enough knowledge and experience to take on a junior programmer position at a smaller firm, which might be open to remote work. The pay won’t be much, I suspect, but it’d be resume fodder and a real job, which also looks good on a resume. You can still do an internship if you decide to do grad school, but this time with real world experience as well.

Good luck!

Well, at least their spamming this post reminded me to block their account, so there is that.

Just say no to fascists, kids.

Yup, and they successfully argued for years that their non-physical presence in a state meant they should not pay sales taxes in that state, effectively forcing states to subsidize Amazon at the expense of local businesses.

So what you seem to be arguing is that logic dictates that anyone with the economic power to ensure or prevent the passage of laws is necessarily correct, and that the only definition for a term like “theft” is the legal interpretation that you, as a non-lawyer, decide to apply. You’re saying that, despite centuries and millennia of colloquial usages of the term, both predating and concurrently used with the very restricted legal definition, any dictionary or other usage-derived definition is invalid.

That doesn’t sound like logic to me, Mr. Spork.

The basis of high crimes and misdemeanors would imply it being criminal

That’s an incorrect reading of that phrase. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is a particular term of art that means pretty much the same thing as “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” It means someone holding office who, by virtue of using the powers of that office, abused those powers in a particularly impactful way. It doesn’t necessarily mean the violation of a specific law, although it could obviously include that. There’s obviously legal precedent that provides additional context, but as formulated at the time it was written it basically means “abuse of power.”

Trump has literally argued in court that the President can do anything up to and including the assassination of a political rival with no repercussions other than impeachment. By extension, that includes the arrest and assassination of members of Congress and the courts who would oversee his impeachment and/or prosecution. They argued that this is a protected right of the office of the president in the constitution, in front of a judge.

To point out that if the same logic were to be applied by Biden to solve the Trump problem is simply showing the absurdity of the argument. You can unclutch those pearls.