Those would all start with the if, followed by two conditions, not a statement and then an if. There would be a condition to evaluate, followed by then/else?
Maybe it's just worse when written. The period at the end of the sentence makes it hard to see how it could be misunderstood.
To your point though, not sure if I'm aware of any programming language that would continue a statement with a following if block. Far more likely that it would fail due to lack of an element to apply the 6 to rather than having a pointer to the previous object, or he would try getting what ever the literal version of a 6 would be, or maybe some slang version.
That is true, but it is also fair to point out that you are proposing solidarity with someone who voted for fully supporting these negative things happening to other people, even if there was only a vague sense of what that might mean, and is specifically upset now that it unexpectedly turned around on him and his circle. We have to stand with and support someone we might have to fully expect to continue doing the exact same thing as the opportunity arise.
It's true his interests overlap our own, and raising everyone up is in our best interests, but just realize that we want to give liferafts to people who would prefer to poke holes in the liferafts of others. We want to save people who are acting like spoiled, entitled children and who we have no reason to believe will act any different after they've been saved. Just understand that afterwards we need a system that will survive this type of behavior.
From the squiggly lines coming from their heads, my current guess is that it's like sometime dropping their heads into their hands after working hard on something just to see it carelessly ruined and knowing they're expected to just do it again, like a bunch of workers spending all day putting up a brick wall and then someone backing into it with a car.
That does make sense, but seems like if that was a component of the situation it might have been mentioned, but it references him going in to finish watching the game in the living room. Sounds a whole lot more like a drinking thing and less likely to be about 'what' he was pissed off about.
Well, can you imagine being given a million dollars and someone coming along and saying 'oh, sorry, you didn't withdraw that in time and now it's no longer there, and you owe use a $100 transaction fee'. That would really suck, wouldn't it?
Now imagine that happening 10 times a day, and you can start to imagine how horrible some of these billionaires feel every day!
Of course to make it more realistic, your job wouldn't require you to actually ever come into the office or do anything, they would occasionally double or triple your salary based on the stock market, and instead of it being a million dollars, it would be a dollar or so every once in awhile and you wouldn't know what the transaction fee was because it is effectively less than a rounding error on your current balance. Also banks will loan you money and just write it off if you don't pay it back with no impact to your credit score.
Once again, wtf does this have to do with an 'NFL game' that deserves space in the title? He was drinking in one place and brought that into a family shared space and didn't like being confronted about it. Based on the rest of the article it could have been a cooking show or Bluey for all the difference it seemed to make. It's not like there was some detail about the football game that passed him off so bad he decided to shoot two people, so why the hell is that part of the title aside from click bait?
Not sure if you're being intentional obtuse, but the point is that some things are more important than protecting members of your own in group that don't deserve protecting, even if it harms the group short term.
No doubt there are considerations to have it happen far enough ahead of the mid-terms so they can recover if it does implicate them, but doesn't the fact that Democrats are willing to push for releasing the document and Trump is pushing to hide them tell you a while lot about what's really likely in there?
Ha, that would make sense, but nope, the answer was 'anything'. Animal husbandry or underwater basket weaving? Didn't matter, just had to stapled to the letters BA.
Except for 'genius'. A PhD meant you will likely be extremely well 'informed' about a specific topic in a very narrow field. So well informed that you will be able to come up with 'something' worth saying even to others that are well informed in that same field. It's a pretty low bar with an extremely high motivation/focus/effort requirement.
I think it's similar to a job we were hiring for that was essentially cold calling companies too sell licenses for Microsoft. To apply you were required to have a BA. A BA in what, you might ask? Well that didn't even make it onto the form we used. It was just a checkbox. It was literally a gauge to see if you'd been able to stick through a program like that.
It is arguably preying on this trait that made the pricing possibleAsode from that, you can't honestly suggest to that just 'not being that way' is a valid option. Sure that can work to a small degree for specific individuals, but 'just don't be the way you are' to solve some specific challenge, likely at the detriment to many other traits you may not want to break, is thoughtless and ignorant advice.
It's an absolute hoax... Anything it says about Republicans that is, every word of it that implicates a Democrat is completely true... But it's an absolute hoax
Indeed