He acknowledged in his closing argument that “my client has committed wrongful conduct against” the pair and had “harmed” them, but asked the jury to keep in mind the good Giuliani had done in his lifetime.

He told them the message he believed they should send is, “You should have been better, but you’re not as bad as the plaintiffs are making you out to be.”

This has to be the worst closing argument ever. This might work if say, a teacher commits a drink driving offense, or a crosswalk attendant steals some laundry detergent, but "think of all the good" that this sycophant did in his life is just going to inspire heavier penalties.

I don't think kids think about consequences in this way. Also not sure if charging a 12 year old as a paedophile is the right move.

Most of this is self referencing. Like the default search engine is not an example of Google's control, it's Mozilla's revenue model.

The remainder sounds like personal gripes that you're misconstruing as evidence of nefarious intent.

There's also plenty of evidence to the contrary, total cookie protection to name but one.

Additionally, beurocratic processes produce terrible software. Log in to any govt website as a refresher.

Finally, browsers are incredibly complex, if this model worked you'd use it for much simpler projects first.

Sorry mate. IMO this is really bread and butter for a team leader.

You're not children. You don't need to be "nice" or "mean".

• hey guy
• I'm really enjoying working with you. You seem to be amazing at x. I'm really hoping I can learn about y from you.
• If I'm really honest though, I just can't concentrate with the fart noises. I know it's just a joke and maybe others are ok with it but it really disrupts my flow, every time.
• Anyhow, how have you been going with z.

I can see why you would think this, but this is a very unusual case. Particularly so given the decision in this article.

You're dead right in that rich people don't go broke like the rest of us - because they have accountants and lawyers set up complex business structures so if something falls over they can just walk away (or drive away in their nice car to their nice house).

This article is pretty much saying that all that usual dance isn't going to work in this case - he still has to pay $1.1b.

Also, there's no law that prevents him from going on making money. That may not feel "right" or just but that dynamic is the same even for poor people. That said, at 100k per month it would take him 916 years to pay $1.1b soo... he might curtail his luxurious lifestyle, maybe not.

There's a lot of dumb answers here.

people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices

It's not the sole motivation and it's not even "a" motivation for some businesses.

Basically, wealthy people generally are going to have all sorts of investments. If you own any commercial property then you're going to exercise whatever influence you have to support people continuing to work on premise. That influence is often in the form of shareholders putting pressure on management.

Maybe try not to make such sweeping generalisations.

Good God man.

Just because there are competing perspectives does not mean that all perspectives are equally appropriate.

Just because someone does something that benefits you personally does not give them a free pass for being a fuck head

because it's a fake sign designed to be read wrong.

This is the worst way to use time travel to get rich i have entry l ever heard

People were such dimwits about it though. Even if you had a security guard at the entrance to every shop challenging people to wear properly fitted n95s, I'm certain heaps of people would remove it after they walked past just on principle.

Monitoring the transmission of the new variant.