Obviously, a loan provider is harmed. Interest rates are calculated based on the radio of debt to assets. If you put a 10k mortgage on a 500k asset, you’re paying far less interest than if you take a 450k mortgage on the same.
That’s such a basic question, anyone who is into real estate shouldn’t have to ask this.
I played Warzone 2100 for a long time. It isn’t as good as Total Annihilation (nothing is)
Have you tried Beyond All Reason? It comes pretty close
You can claim that your house or property is worth as much as you want
No, you can’t. If you knowingly and grossly lie on paperwork that’s called fraud. Why the hell would that be legal?
The fact that most people try to sneak 10% is entirely different from ballooning things by 600% and intentionally lying about the reasons.
Oh, so, is the defamation case something he didnt do (despite the rock solid evidence), or something he should get away with because other people do it too (the ultimate 6-year-old excuse)?
And does everyone claim their property is worth 500%-800% more for decades on their loan applications?
Have other people gotten away with hiding top secret files in their bathrooms, and lying about having them? Or did that not happen, despite the people moving them being on film?
I don’t even care about the case about campaign finances.
Someone measured enough penguins to find the average buttholecloaca size though. I would NOT do that for free…
Why not at least “poop”?
Whats unfair about the lawsuits against Trump? Afaik, the most unfair bit is that (federalist society weirdo) judge Canon is working her ass off to stall till after the elections.
what was malicious about it?
maybe, jury is still out
Actually, for the New York civil fraud suit, Trump forgot to ask for a jury trial. But the judge very much found him guilty. In the E Jean Carol case, he was found guilty by not cooperating with discovery, and the jury was pretty clear on the 92m damages.
So nah, the jury has made up their minds.
I mean, it’s much easier to dismiss a shitty question than a good one.
Are there silverfish big enough to eat roaches?
No no no, I’m an et al, just no any of those particular et al.
I’m going to steal cite this. I guess it’ll be ‘et al et al.’
Also, if someone just says “you’re wrong about X” that’s way easier to deal with than “considering this other paper says these things, can you explain your motivation for X?”.
Those questions are the worst.
The problem is you have no way of maintaining that. You’re always one crazy idea away from dystopia, and you have no way to stop it.
In Australia? I would.
Assuming you’re not American, yes.
I would be VERY surprised. And I NASA didn’t award blue origin a second moon lander contract because they have utmost faith in Starship/HLS.
I will be first in line to say Falcon is an amazing piece of engineering, and Starlink is a great way to fund Falcon. It’ll never turn a profit, but it’s an amazing way to turn venture capital into cheap rockets for everyone.
But SpaceX has missed every single HLS deadline by a mile. They’ve got 2 more weeks to do their first unmanned moon landing, according to the original schedule. It’ll take 12 (or 20?) successful launches to do 1 lunar landing and return, so I’ll take this bet.
The 2 billion contract was for HLS. It was originally higher, but Kathy Lueders gave SpaceX a call to lower their bid to just under the (previously undisclosed) limit, making them the only valid bid. That’s what the Blue Origin lawsuit was about, but the judge said it was legal for NASA to “enter in negotiations” with single parties, so this was allowed. You might recognise the name Kathy Leuders, because right after she handed SpaceX the contract, she quit NASA and got a job at SpaceX.
I think I’m validated in finding the whole HLS situation extremely concerning.
To quote an old professor: “there isn’t a lab table dirty enough that a little benzene won’t clean it!” Fortunately for us (and him) ‘they’ wouldn’t let him do that anymore.
He also habitually turned his head sideways when working with, say, ether, because you dont want your pipe to set the fumes on fire.
That’s a great study, but it ignores one massively important point: you can be trans and not dysphoric, quite a few trans people aren’t dysphoric.
Dysphoria is distress you feel because a gender mismatch. It’s entirely possible for a 7 year old boy to hate the fact that he was born male and be very upset over that. And that same person at 20 could be completely at peace with it.
They might be happily going through life as a male, female, or anything else, the paper doesn’t say. If you stop being upset over the gender assigned at birth, you’re not dysphoric anymore, that’s all that’s measured.
This paper doesn’t say “most dysphoric boys stop wanting to be girls before they’re 20”. It says “most dysphoric boys stop hating the fact they were born as boys before they’re 20”. Hell they might have fully transitioned, the paper doesn’t say.
Just so we’re clear, your excuse for fraud is “but the other party has to check it too?”
Buddy, where do you think half the evidence is from?
You can read the decision for yourself. I don’t need to defend the judge. https://www.scribd.com/document/706231478/452564-2022-People-of-the-State-of-v-People-of-the-State-of-Decision-After-Trial-1688#1fullscreen=1
For the explanation or damages, check the expert witnesses especially.