Which instance?

The NYT has always been a rag for the oligarchs. Nothing more, nothing less.

In general that would be pretty easy to identify. If the number of votes were large enough to impact an election you’d see voting numbers that are far greater than you expect based on the population and demographics of the area served by a particular voting office. In addition you’d see counts greater than you expect when certain people are working but not for others.

In addition usually you have to check in at a desk or table to get your ballot. An official dishonestly stuffing the ballot box would also have to somehow fabricate real voters checking in at the desk, or else there’d be more ballots than people who checked in and they’d identify the fraud. Where I live you check in with your ID card so unless the official had a bunch of IDs of valid registered voters they’d be caught.

Lastly voting fraud is a crime pretty much everywhere, so getting caught is bad.

A more realistic version of voting fraud is what is being planned in the US: getting supporters of a candidate (in this case Trump) to volunteer at voting locations and having those people fabricate evidence of fraud. This can just be their testimony, but it can be used later in lawsuits to give face value validity to accusations that the election was stolen, and used as justification for violence or a coup. This is what Trump tried, poorly, in 2020. They will try better in 2024.

No no you see, I have been assured that the Ukrainians are the real nazis. The proof? Well, the Russians said it. And, uh…hexbear! So…you know.

The science of space flight is largely figured out? That will be news to the scientists on spacex’s staff. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about

Moving things into orbit requires a substantial amount of science.

Good thing in what way

Because they are impressive in the way NASA was. Which is the problem - we should be doing this as a nation and not subsidizing whatever a billionaire fancies at the moment.

The risks of observing Israel commit war crimes. Props to them for staying and fuck the IDF for firing on the UN.

With the caveat that many food borne illnesses are not killed when frozen. If something was contaminated when frozen it can remain contaminated when thawed (to your point though I don’t think many things that are fine when frozen can become unsafe while frozen)

But they literally HAVE a fiduciary obligation. I agree with you that people use that as an excuse for heinous shit, but in this case they had a formal, legally binding offer. Musk was in breach of contract and they sued for specific performance or damages. Musk didn’t want to pay the damages. If they didn’t sue, Twitter would forfeit I think $1bn in damages and their stock would tank. Not suing would open the door for hostile investors to come in, pretend to buy, back out when they wanted to and time the stock movements. I get what you’re saying, but this is a case where if the board didn’t sue then Twitters shareholders pay for it.

You and I may agree that they never should have been in that place to begin with but that’s definitionally a fiduciary obligation

Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.

Oh perfect! OP can probably just recreate that sound, even just slap a 3600rpm spinning disk drive in there for good measure. It’ll be familiar and cosy for them.

No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/

They don’t have that feature out of the box but I bet you could configure them to do so. I’m sure there’s a “randomly beep and turn on in the middle of the night” lib somewhere.

Erase it. Join us.

Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders

It’s literally discussed in the Wikipedia definition…

Talkativity is a defining feature of extraversion

Hot take: This is gonna sound conceited to introverts but “shutting the fuck up so others can talk and contribute” IS society forcing extroverts to do exactly what you said. When an extrovert isn’t talking they are probably deliberately holding back because it’s socially polite

I assume taxing the rich is obviously impossible so the only solution is squeezing the poor \s