Not to mention, even if he’s a disingenious opportunist, he’s still bringing awareness to an issue you care about. Use that. You don’t owe him anything in return.

Reasonable doubt would be the standard then. But also it’s ultimately an academic question because no prosecutor that isn’t being a pedantic and/or vindictive asshole will try someone for this statute violation based on someone erroneously representing their credentials but not acting upon that misrepresention. This law is meant to protect people from fraudsters claiming to be lawyers. Not for the law equivalent of stolen valor. It’s still illegal (and sad/scummy) but no one is going to waste their time trying this case.

That is not true. More than a few laws have been created, enforced and had judgements executed on them that were vague as fuck. Part of a judge’s job is interpreting the law. Defining your terms adds clarity, but that is not a requirement. And were it a requirement, then you just move the goal post to defining your definition.

You can add the definition:

Referring to yourself by the terms “lawyer” or “attorney” qualify as representing yourself as one who practices or may practice law.

Well what do you mean by “referring”? In writing? Verbally? In specific contexts? While soliciting business? Do you have to specifically say “I am a lawyer” or does implying you are one counts?

What do you mean by “yourself”? Your qualifications? Your clothing/appearance? Your mindset? Your future goals? Your idealized self?

You get the point. If you had to list every single way that a law could be broken, and define every single term within it (and within that, and within that, and within that, ad nauseum), then absolutley no law would be enforceable. Some amount 9f colloquial understanding of terms is required, as is intent.

That’s why people argue about the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, for example. They argue about the framers’ intent, context, verbiage, historical precedent, practicality, etc. and lawyers and judges OFTEN come up with conflicting interpretation. That doesn’t mean that the law gets thrown out. It means that judicial interpretation, precedent, practicality, and stare decisis (i.e. deference to the decisions of a higher court) all have a part to play in law.

He did say vote like it is him on the ballot. I will treat every Republican accordingly. I’d sooner snap my finger off than tap the name with an ® next to it.

God could still exist. It just means that either he isn’t benevolent, isn’t all-powerful, isn’t all-knowing, or some combination thereof.

A good chef’s knife serves a lot of purposes very well and gets the most use in my house. But some knives are better for some tasks. I have a chefs knife that I use for the majority of chopping tasks for cooking prep. But I also have paring knifes for slicing small things, fruits, cheese, etc. or where finess is required that a chef knife is too unwieldy for the job, a bread knife for bread (duh), a boning knife (it doesn’t get a ton of use but is nice to have when needed), and a very nice Santoku knife I only whip out when I need to butcher a chicken or something and need a bit if chef knife and a bit of cleaver. I also have serrated knives for cutting meats, and butter knives for butters and spreads.

Compensation.

The law says that misrepresenting yourself as one who practices or may practice law is the violation. It does not specify that you refer to yourself by any specific terms.

There is no legal distinction between “lawyer” or “attorney” in California law. And speaking from nearly 4 decades of being an American and native English speaker, there is no colloquial difference either. They are used interchangeablly.

Whatever lax meaning they are trying to project onto the term “lawyer” was made up wholecloth by them to obfuscate her (criminal) lie.

“But we didnt mean for those things to happen.” “We didnt design it for that.” “We cant be held responsible for the AI going rogue.”

Bro, if I sold you a chat bot that sometimes committed phishing attacks and stole your identity, do you think “We just wanted it to make it really good at personalized conversations by getting to know you” frees me from the liability of how it determined it should do that and what it was capable of doing to follow through with it?

This shit is happening in your own labs. You can’t isolate and maintain control over systems that are 100% under your ownership and management with a team of tech experts, and you think releasing this stuff to the general public won’t result in 1000 times worse outcomes? How is that not criminal negligence?

As a former Purdue student… booooo.

Tiny droopy eyes and promeminent cheekbones. Took me a second to realize it wasn’t meant to be Elon Musk.

That was also probably the goal. By talking about it constantly and making it sound more intense and interesting to everyone, it both scares their people more and intrigues other people. They bring the obedient and impressionable in and compel them to not partake, and they push the rebellious and skeptical into doing the thing they are already demonizing. You freely enjoyed a form of media because they demonized it and thus the hordes of heathens grew, strengthening their influence and control over the in-group.

That plan: Whine about how you can’t get anything done with Trumps veto power, so you’ll just have to continue to capitulate to his every whim while you fundraise on your failures…

Interesting. Why? Do the dishwashers there require only using cold?

In the US, it is always meant to be connected to the hot tap. The first rinse cycle doesn’t heat the water (or doesn’t run long enough for the heater to make it hot, anyway). It depends on the hot water from the line to be maximally effective that first rinse. And once drained and refilled for the wash, the water will get up to temp eventually, but it’s more effective if it starts hotter.

It’s all one big incestuous swamp, isn’t it.

The fact that they stopped roller coasters of similar design at other parks means that there is a possibility of a fundamental design flaw of the tracks and/or cars.

Someone else is saying that someone was ejected from a car and may have struck another car on the way down. That would align with the one death and others injured, and indicate a possible design flaw in the safety harness system. Maybe the primary and redundant harnesses failed through a design flaw. Maybe the rider/operator(s) misapplied the restraints and the operator(s) failed to catch the mistake. Either way, mechanical or process failure, means that their safety system needs to be reworked and/or more stringently applied. It takes multiple failures for something like an ejection to happen.

Bro… did you guys know that she was not only Trump Jr.'s fiancée but also was MARRIED to Gavin Newsom!? Her type is apparently greasy rich white guy who is literally one of the worst people in their respective political parties who fucking hates poor people.

It is easy to gather in solidarity when A) You are literally trained in pack tactics, backing up your fellow officer, and the culture instills an us vs them mentality by default, B) the solidarity you have is specifically in self-preservation from consequences for violent crimes that would otherwise destroy your life, and C) you are in a position of authority that gives you protection, preference, deference, and priority in all legal matters.

If this is true, I am very concerned at the level of moron in the AI field. Smoking doesn’t just cause cancer. It is an addictive habit, expensive, makes you and your clothes stink, yellows your teeth, makes your skin wrinkle prematurely, ruins you sense of taste and smell, makes you constantly need to huddle in the elements to get your fix, makes you stressed when you can’t get a smoke in for a long time, collects tar in your lungs making breathing less efficient, increases asthma occurrences and risks, dramatically increases chances of getting chronic upper respiratory issues, serious pneumonia, heart disease, and a plethora of cancers (not just lungs). All for the benefit of a mild hit of dopamine that gets less effective with each smoke. But sure, you MIGHT be able to stave off the cancer in the future. If that was the one thing holding you back…

Antitrust laws? In what way is refusing to cover the president non-competitve, monopolistic or predatory to consumers?