There’s Mapillary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapillary) and KartaView (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KartaView)
via the tiger cage
……….🏃……….🐅……….
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
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)
Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!
lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief
The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:
If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.
If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.
Once
That’s a single datapoint. You should probably get more to be sure
Not a single mention to Mastodon 😕