Not even that. For example if there are 10 assembly lines in parallel that the slowest step takes 60 seconds, you still get a phone each 6 seconds

Here are a few:

https://organicmaps.app/donate

https://www.freecad.org/sponsor.php

https://inkscape.org/support-us/donate

https://donate.kicad.org/

EU joins UK

lol

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the European Union

Not a single mention to Mastodon 😕

There’s Mapillary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapillary) and KartaView (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KartaView)

via the tiger cage

……….🏃……….🐅……….

https://vger.app

It’s a web app

Cash back is simply to use a cashier at a store as a sort of ATM to withdraw money. Example: You buy groceries and when you go to pay with your card you ask for some amount of cash back. Your card will be charged for your groceries + the amount that you asked in cash, that you get as physical money.

If the menu is available on a website you can link to it by adding the website:menu tag. These will show on Organic Maps for example

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Awebsite%3Amenu

See for example this bar that Organic Maps shows the link to the Menu:

Mate Bar https://omaps.app/0ysrTcXR-t/Mate_Bar om://0ysrTcXR-t/Mate_Bar

Dozens of us did! 😁

Do they say what phone it was?

Lots of other websites have already copied the “pay or consent” ad model

This is a huge update! tts for street names, iCloud sync and gpx export 👏👏👏

The only evidence to overturn the election points to republicans

Bad bot

Wat

Italy and Spain be like: drive however you want

Then you are totally locked in with Apple devices and cannot switch to Android and take your passkeys with you

Typical 1-off error

Now thinking about it in terms of mathematical logic, the DoJ and Supreme Court‘s interpretations is wrong:

It’s actually a law of logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws) that says that:

not (A and B and C)

is equal to

(not A) or (not B) or (not C)

—

In this case:

The defendant is eligible for relief if he does not (A and B and C)

Which is the same as

The defendant is a eligible for relief if he does (not A) or (not B) or (not C)

—

Which is not what the DoJ is saying. The DoJ is saying that

not (A and B and C)

is equal to

(not A) and (not B) and (not C)