Reminds me of one of my favorite stories, from Phaedrus:
> Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved or disapproved. The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
Whenever I read this parable, I take memory to mean internalization or thorough learning. It doesn't fit the text word for word, but I think it's closer to the main point than the idea of memorizing something verbatim.
The trick for the builder is that THEY are the owner until final paper sign - so anything above final pre purchase inspection is not something they have to allow.
Which is why you don’t use them, or go in expecting shiny crap.
The inspections. Actually, I think it would be legal to do so, but if the builder sells the home and they don't disclose problems with the house they'd likely be opening themselves up to a civil suit, and having a contract which severely restricts the kind of inspection you do would be strong evidence that they knew, or should have known, that something was fucked up. Lennar certainly has a team of lawyers that know more about this than I do...but a lot of this sort of thing depends on legal action costing more than it's worth...and one or two odd cases they do get might just be settled out of court and chalked up as an operating expense.
I had this on an old brick phone, but I forgot which brand. You'd triple click the power button and it'd start ringing a few seconds later so you had time to move your hands away from it and not look like you triggered it. You could even have it display a custom contact.
That's what I'm wondering about. I wouldn't mind temporary higher energy usage to get smoother interactions, but I'm not sure what the long-term impact on the screen is.
This goes back to 2016, when Dems decided it was better to nominate one of the least popular American politicians in living memory than the alternative candidate who had broad working class appeal. Not to mention they juiced up Trump's campaign because that was the only candidate Mi Abuela was projected to win against. Yeah Trump may be the Antichrist but we wouldn't be here without him being able to run against some of the most comically weak candidates.
Superdelegates hamstrung the process. Kate Brown for instance, the governor of Oregon at the time (who btw was an unelected governer during that term, as her predecessor had stepped down) voted against the will of her constituents for Hilldog -- Oregon had overwhelmingly supported Bernie. Let's not forget some of the caucuses in other states which were outright rigged. An auditorium blew up for Bernie but the presiding party official put it in for Clinton. When shit like that just happens out in the open you have to wonder what's going on behind closed doors.
I believe Republicans actually have a democratic nomination process without superdelegates, which is how they got Trump -- IIRC he had a few early wins and snowballed from there.
There's a number of things going on here, but the short of it is that to become the democratic nominee you need to convince a whole bunch of people, including some super delegates. Hillary Clinton did a better job of this than Bernie Sanders.
How she did it could probably be the subject of an entire book, but no one has ever come up with any particularly scandalous stories about it so far.
Yes, and the superdelegates, whose job was to make sure people didn't pick the wrong candidate (how democratic of them), picked probably the least popular politician in America at the time.
Trump likely would have lost against almost any other candidate, but he had help from the Democratic party, who treated Hil's nom as a coronation.
