Same, always used Google Meet, was forced to use teams. It took me a second to find the right button while rambling about it. Being a Mac I also needed to enable the permission and restart.
I haven't used Zoom in a while either, it would probably take me a second as well if it's not obvious.
I wonder if it was more an assumption that the rules only applied to viable pregnancies.
I mean I'm pro-choice but I'd assume anyone pushing to ban abortion is aiming to prevent viable pregnancies from being terminated while still allowing medically necessary or unviable pregnancies to be terminated.
Was that really the issue? She felt pretty "souly" to me. I'm wondering if it's more voter turnout and people not being ready to vote for a woman (for whatever reason).
I mean was Biden really above and beyond Harris? He beat Trump, and Trump arguably has even less going for him this election.
I get what you're going for but you're not giving their sexual partners much credit. Do you not believe women can turn down or validly consent to sex with Elon Musk because he's a billionaire? It says a bit about what you think of women.
If you had to say one of them won, who would you pick?
I don't disagree that there wasn't a ton of useful information in the debate, there was barely room for anyone to talk actual policy, but Harris came across as a rational human who at least pretended to care about others while Trump was a blabbering idiot.
In Australia cartoon child porn is enforced in the same way as actual child porn. Not that it answers your question but it's interesting.
I'd imagine for your question "it depends", some people who would have acted on their urges may get their jollies from AI child porn, others who have never considered being pedophiles might find the AI child porn (assuming legal) and realise it's something they were into.
I guess it may lower the production of real child porn which feels like a good thing. I'd hazard a guess that there are way more child porn viewers than child abusers.
Oh right, I was not aware of JKRs comments on funding anti-trans organisations. I guess my point still stands, I.e. that people often don't have deep insight into the creators of the art they are enjoying, so considering liking Harry Potter as a statement about their feelings on the author doesn't resonate with me but I understand why you'd have issues with it with the funding comment in mind.
Entirely agree on liking Andrew Tate being a red flag in the same way liking JKR directly would be a red flag. It's more liking the books that JKR put out years before anyone heard her potentially rotting brain driven opinions on trans people that I don't think should be seen as a red flag without at least some questioning about their thoughts on the author.
I thought it was funny.
As far as supporting JKR goes: JKR is a horrible person who no-one should listen to but Harry Potter is pop culture. I'm pretty comfortable personally with disconnecting the two in my head. I don't think people enjoying Harry Potter should be seen as "supporting JKR", hell a lot of them wouldn't even be aware of JKRs noise.
Obviously I haven't read the comments here a ton but are people really supporting JKR or are you just treating people enjoying Harry Potter as support for JKR? I think there should be a distinction. It's not really people's job to deep dive into the personal lives of the creators or people involved in every piece of art they enjoy.
Oh shit, rambling is an ADHD thing?
What are Ukraine's demands for surrender?
How do they justify that? I mean I can see why people would be against aborting viable fetuses, but a fetus that will never live seems absurd.
I guess we also force dying people to wait it out, so maybe it's on trend.