From a different post for this link: “Wow, this is so sad. I didn’t know there was a Wonder Man thing in production either.”

Sounds like it’s working

Yikes

Did you feel like your work was rewarding? Were you proud of what came from your time, or did you feel the crushing weight of corporate expectations sucking out creativity?

While I think most agree with you, it’s important to note there is more to networking than WAN access. Streaming 4k in your home network over WiFi sounds pretty awesome for security cameras and other self-hosted medias.

If you were found guilty by the courts, then yes in the eyes of the courts you have a committed the crime. If and when there are appeals, new evidence, or overturned verdicts, then that evaluation would change.

The whole point ends up being that criminal as a word has a specific definition, and those who have been convicted of crimes fit that definition.

I don’t get it. The heck is that supposed to be

This is a bit of chicken and egg, but if you’ve committed a crime, you are a criminal. If you’ve been accused of a crime, you are not a criminal, until you are proven to be guilty.

If youve been convicted, you’ve been found guilty. If you’ve been found guilty, that means you’ve committed a crime, and are a criminal.

In order to be an inmate (barring those await trials in jails) you must be a criminal.

Your concern, I think, is stemmed from the unfortunate stigma that follows criminals long after their rehabilitation/incarceration, which is a valid stance. However, if someone is currently in a prison, as an inmate, they must be a criminal in the eyes of the law. That doesn’t mean they are criminals from then until the end of time, however.

But inmates are by definition criminals? They have been judged guilty and sentenced to time in prison.

Hotdogs are tacos and corn dogs are calzones.

You’re not wrong. I am most certainly projecting how I believe I might behave given the situation. And I do agree with the idea that once you give something, it’s not up to you to decide how it’s used. Like the article is pointing out, these biases are frighteningly common that funds will be used in negative ways (drugs/alcohol).

I am, however, trying to paint a more “accurate” picture for how most people would be charitably giving/receiving (small denominations, namely). Would that change in amount be significant in how it is then utilized.

The choice of it being given in a large sum is interesting. I recognize I have the bias of giving money to individuals with fear that it will be misused, but I do think it has to do with amount. If someone gave me $20 randomly, I’d be much more likely to impulse spend it than if I was given $1,000. With a large sum it feels more impactful to save/invest/pay bills than needing to contribute small amounts consistently.

The first thing that springs to mind is something like a “magic mirror”. I haven’t delved into it a ton, but I’m fairly certain that it would be able to hit most of your criteria.

That being said, I’d think it could be a decent enough starting point to at least find other things in the same vein.

Can you expand on some of this?

I haven’t really heard much regarding them being bad to their community/customer base, though I haven’t bought in a few years.

In regards to cost/performance, what are you meaning you’d need to spend extra on to match that of an old laptop or recycled machine?