There was never any evidence of this. The best explanation I heard is that Magnus’ company was merging with chess.com right before a tournament, and with that the information of cheating bans were made available to him. He found out that Hans had been banned for cheating a couple years prior on chess.com. Speculation is that this put Magnus on tilt during his match with Hans, and losing just confirmed Magnus’ suspicion that Hans is a cheater IRL as well as online.
At some point of being late it is presumed missing, and the fee is to replace the book so other patrons can enjoy. It’s not a “free books to keep forever building”
Because no defense lawyer would ever advise that
If your client is actually innocent, there’s a place for getting on the stand with righteous indignance. But… That was clearly not the case here.
I wish we could pin it to some objective measure and stop dealing with this set of decisions. Same with other forms of support.
I think they were afraid of discovery revealing even more malicious information than what’s being assumed.
That’s great for people coming to the community, but it buries it in “hot” and “top last x”.
Constructive disagreement is always welcome. Angry downvotes with no backing discussion are bad for the community.
Sure, but when people downvote this post because they don’t like it, it makes it less visible and discoverable for people who do, overall decreasing the value of this community.
The movie was awesome! Easily the best concert movie I’ve seen. The production values were through the roof, and I definitely cried a few times just being overwhelmed by it all.
I went to a Dolby theater and the booming sound was honestly worth it. It was cut down to 2.5h so not quite as long. You should go!
The intention of the person with the gun was to kill him. Full stop. Do not point your firearm at anything you do not wish to destroy.
I’m with you, but if you say that on posts like this you get forever downvotes.
I never believed it would happen. I’m assuming one of Nays will be coming for his throat now and calling for removal. Maybe he just gave up trying to delay the inevitable.
So you agree he shouldn’t ever have a gun again, and probably shouldn’t have had one to begin with. Glad we got to the same result through a different path.
Far be it from me to defend YouTube “prank” creators, but for all people talk about “responsible gun ownership”, this person was clearly not responsible and should be forever prohibited from owning a gun. If you were in no way touched or threatened, how the fuck can you justify discharging your firearm in a public place?
Is there any statement as to why it was vetoed?
Such a great change!
Thanks for the nuanced info, that makes a lot of sense.
What’s your point in linking to that opinion piece?