iltoroargento

I mean, if it was continual, it sounds like it’s actually the landlord skipping out on their pest control duties. That shit’s illegal.

Something, something… Jamaharon…

“Don’t call him Shirley…”

The wonky shelving is what really sells it for me. Also, you can wash your vegetables while you wash yourself, so, that’s a winner all around.

“Please, try the bosghetti…”

Love Diedrich Bader. I remember watching him in Outsourced (2010) and being pretty miffed it didn’t get another season.

I mean… Casinos are all a big scam to begin with lol

They just like the cool greens. I feel like that may be an interesting experience.

Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I’m not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.

And I think it’s even more dangerous than that, it’s not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.

Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it’s even more effective in a case. If they’re mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they’ll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.

Boomers act like preteens…

Quite a few. It’s definitely hyperbole, but in civil litigation, it’s hard to get people who are actually doing research/still practicing their craft and have recent knowledge/are the real deal as they feel like they’re better serving their interests by not wasting their time on a court case (which I find pretty hard to disagree with, tbh).

Edit: added the stuff about recent knowledge as there are definitely good intentioned people who will start doing this kind of work as they wind down their practice or research.

I mean, context matters, I’m mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.

I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.

Agreed. Functionally, the laziness of the US justice system incentivizes quick and easy answers and simple findings of fact. Not much inquiry or investigation going on in your average case.

Additionally, the pool of “experts” consists primarily of people in a field who have already made the choice to sell their services to the highest bidder.

Now, of course, there are experts who jump into a courtroom because they’ve been righteously incensed by the subject matter at hand or want to make sure that facts and scientific conclusions are presented accurately, but in my experience, every medical “expert” I’ve met is a mercenary.

Edit: Your point about peers is a very good one, although I don’t see courts expending resources to incentivize or force actual peers to convene for every malpractice dispute. No matter how much I wish they could.

Yeah, the inclusion of this test in any kind of deliberation would just muddy the waters. I don’t see how that serves any goal of justice.

John Wick origin story material, here.

Dear god, that was epic.

Nice, yeah, that’s kinda how I was thinking. Thanks for the recommendation!

Ooh. Those price points are pretty solid. If you had to pick one for daily use, including travel, would you go InkPad 4 or one of the eras?

deleted by creator