It exists in organized crime but all the cases I've read about have that one thing in common: The killer worked for organized crime. And they were never fully unaligned either, always for the same families or groups that are loosely allied.
More work, shorter deadlines, smaller headcount, higher expectations in terms of adaptability/transferability of people between projects (who needs knowledge transfer, ask the AI!).
But in the end, the thing that pisses me off was a manager who used it to write tickets. If the product owner doesn't give a shit about the product enough to think and write about what they want, you'll never be successful as a developer.
Is this article a weird cut-paste of older content? This passage makes no sense in the rest of the context, the tense is all wrong.
>Starting in 2029, the Oscars will also be streamed globally on YouTube, which the academy hopes will attract new audiences and reinvigorate the ceremony’s popularity after years of declining viewership.
Edit: I read 2019 not.. 2029. That's actually incredible. Are they going to get in on tiktok for 2039 next?
What exactly doesn't make sense? The Oscars are moving to streaming the event globally on YouTube (bunch of TV channels has said they'll stop broadcasting it in 2029), and the viewership of the Oscars has been declining for years. I'm not sure I see what's wrong in there.
Now you have two problems: That poor soul has lost their meager income and you've criminalized countless people who will no doubt still be consuming porn but from illicit sources
Not all his children, only his daughters. Also his nomination seriously pushes Iran from a theocracy to an elective monarchy imho. Wich, to be clear, is a common slide for theocracies. The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.
> The Papal ban on children for priests is perhaps the only instance where a theocracy managed to prevent this slide.
Pretty impressive effect, given that there is no such ban. There are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is, but there isn't.
Sorry, ban on priest marriage. Or rather, a celibacy obligation for bishop and priests. Which makes it a ban on children for Christians. I think it's in the 12th century that the rule was instaured, and was, let say, made effective by the council on Trent during the reformation.
> Sorry, ban on priest marriage. [...] Which makes it a ban on children for Christians.
Well, no, it doesn't, and its important to note what the actual bans are to understand why it doesn't. There is:
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on men who are already priests marrying in the Catholic Church,
* a softer ban on married men becoming priests in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (this is the 12th Century rule you reference),
* no ban on married men becoming priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church,
* a fairly hard ban (essentially absolute, except for an exception noted at the end of this list) on currently-married men becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on men who are widowers (including men admitted to the priesthood while married) becoming bishops in the Catholic Church,
* no ban on a married Catholic man (possibly a layman, a Latin Rite deacon, one of the already exceptional Latin Rite priests, or an Eastern Rite priest) being ordained Bishop of Rome after being elected by the College of Cardinals (the rule for this specific allows any Catholic man to be elected) to the Papacy, though its never happened.
It is not impossible for a man to be both married and have children licitly while being a Catholic priest, and it is not impossible for a man to licitly have children through marriage as a widower while being a Catholic bishop (including the Pope), and its even technically possible for a married man with children to be Pope, though it is improbable that someone not already a bishop---and therefore not currently married, but possibly widowed and with children—and cardinal would be elected.)
As I said originally, there is no rule against a Catholic priest having children, though “there are a number of other rules which can combine to make it look approximately like there is.”
> no ban on a married Catholic man (possibly a layman, a Latin Rite deacon, one of the already exceptional Latin Rite priests, or an Eastern Rite priest) being ordained Bishop of Rome after being elected by the College of Cardinals
That was the theme of the third "act" of one of my favorite novels, 1978's The Vicar of Christ by Walter F. Murphy.
Act 1: The protagonist — a young Catholic, son of a U.S. diplomat, and U.S. Marine Corps junior officer, is wounded at Iwo Jima in WWII. After becoming a law professor, he's recalled to active duty for the Korean War, where he's awarded the Medal of Honor for valor as a battalion commander in combat. (The author was himself a decorated Marine officer in Korea.)
Act 2: Years later, the protagonist is a longtime law school dean. He's appointed Chief Justice of the United States because of political deal-making between the President and a couple of different senators who have agendas.
Years after that, after a personal tragedy, the protagonist resigns and joins a monastery.
Act 3: Having been a monk for just a couple of years, the protagonist is elected pope by the College of Cardinals as a compromise candidate after a long deadlock between the two front-runners. He takes the name "Francis" (after Francis of Assisi) and immediately begins shaking things up both institutionally and doctrinally — to the displeasure of traditionalists.
That's a lot of words for describing "attempting MAD doctrine with conventional weapons". Hell, we even got to see a "first strike decapitation countered by autonomous cells with pre-written second strike directives" scenario play out.
reply