This is an example of what is often referred to as ‘singular they’.
The grammatical subject—every employee—is singular, as is the verb is expected, but the following pronoun, their, is plural. Hence the name. It happens when they, them, their, and themselves refer back to subjects that are grammatically singular:
Is it grammatically correct?
Despite objections, there is a trend to use ‘singular they’. In fact, it is historically long established. It goes back at least to the 16th century, and writers such as Shakespeare, Sidney, Byron, and Ruskin used it:
I am not aware of any fine print on lottery tickets excluding wins based on "programming error". The programming defines the game and any error is not the fault of the player.
Yes, and that programming can have errors which will invalidate the payouts. This is the party of pretty much every lottery system in existence. You not really this ignorant are you?
Disagree. If they played by the rules all those tickets should be valid.
You mean the same rules that say that such malfunctions invalidate these tickets? Oops...
They weren't exploiting anything and the wins weren't a result of a malfunction (a programming error is not a malfunction, the game worked as implemented).
Except a programming error is the very definition of a malfunction.
If this had happened in a casino the state gaming commission would force them to pay all winners.
No it wouldn't. You clearly know nothing about how casino gaming works. Machines clearly state in their rules that malfunctions invalidate all plays and any big payouts are also subject to verification before a casino will pay out. No casino is required to payout a prize due to a gaming machine malfunction.
How do you think genetically derived disabilities come about then, explain that to me if it's not derived from random genetic mutations.
Where do you think lactose tolerance came from? Oh right, random genetic mutations and last time I checked lactose tolerance is not a disability. That's why your statement is dumb.
Then where is it from?
The issue was with your blanket statement. There are plenty of random mutations that have provided species with more hardiness rather than disability.
I said nothing about "genetic purity" you said that, not me.
No, it was just your implication.
Survival of the fittest simply means those that are able to survive do. These days everybody is able to survive.
Yes, and many species have been able to be more fit for survival because of random mutations. So basically the opposite of your entire claim.
Without survival of the fittest, random mutations will survive.
So you think survival of the fittest is some sort of mechanism to enforce genetic purity? The fuck?
Random mutations = disabilities.
No they don't. This is likely the dumbest thing you've posted in this entire subthread which is amazing since your first sentence was already pretty fucking stupid.
This assumes there are equal numbers of men and women...
According to 2016 estimates of the South Sudanese population, the breakdown is about 46% men to 54% women. Hardly a huge imbalance with only about 12 million people.
At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.
It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashcode is shit.
There is no singular "they",
Poor troll is poor.
This is an example of what is often referred to as ‘singular they’.
The grammatical subject—every employee—is singular, as is the verb is expected, but the following pronoun, their, is plural. Hence the name. It happens when they, them, their, and themselves refer back to subjects that are grammatically singular:
Is it grammatically correct?
Despite objections, there is a trend to use ‘singular they’. In fact, it is historically long established. It goes back at least to the 16th century, and writers such as Shakespeare, Sidney, Byron, and Ruskin used it:
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
But I'm sure you know more than the Oxford English Dictionary, right?
And if you don't trust Merriam Webster we can even go to the OED:
1.1 Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex.
‘she heard someone blow their nose loudly’
Fail much?
"Their" is plural.
Only to people woefully ignorant.
Definition of their
2 : his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent
anyone in their senses —W. H. Auden
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
‘Their’ was already correct and didn’t need fixing.
I don’t.
Definition of their
2 : his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent
anyone in their senses —W. H. Auden
No, they pulled it from Trump’s own schedule. Truth hurts doesn’t it?
Why do you assume the user is a he? Their is a perfectly acceptable term.
Except that was neither what Trump actually said or meant when he said they’d pay for it. Nice try, though.
Boring troll is boring...
Is that when Ann Coulter joins in?
Including an intimate evening with Kellyanne Conway.
I think I threw up a little in my mouth. Does she cosplay as Skeletor for you at the same time?
I am not aware of any fine print on lottery tickets excluding wins based on "programming error". The programming defines the game and any error is not the fault of the player.
Yes, and that programming can have errors which will invalidate the payouts. This is the party of pretty much every lottery system in existence. You not really this ignorant are you?
Disagree. If they played by the rules all those tickets should be valid.
You mean the same rules that say that such malfunctions invalidate these tickets? Oops...
They weren't exploiting anything and the wins weren't a result of a malfunction (a programming error is not a malfunction, the game worked as implemented).
Except a programming error is the very definition of a malfunction.
If this had happened in a casino the state gaming commission would force them to pay all winners.
No it wouldn't. You clearly know nothing about how casino gaming works. Machines clearly state in their rules that malfunctions invalidate all plays and any big payouts are also subject to verification before a casino will pay out. No casino is required to payout a prize due to a gaming machine malfunction.
Clearly the problem is that the extension wasn't written in Rust...
How do you think genetically derived disabilities come about then, explain that to me if it's not derived from random genetic mutations.
Where do you think lactose tolerance came from? Oh right, random genetic mutations and last time I checked lactose tolerance is not a disability. That's why your statement is dumb.
Then where is it from?
The issue was with your blanket statement. There are plenty of random mutations that have provided species with more hardiness rather than disability.
I said nothing about "genetic purity" you said that, not me.
No, it was just your implication.
Survival of the fittest simply means those that are able to survive do. These days everybody is able to survive.
Yes, and many species have been able to be more fit for survival because of random mutations. So basically the opposite of your entire claim.
Without survival of the fittest, random mutations will survive.
So you think survival of the fittest is some sort of mechanism to enforce genetic purity? The fuck?
Random mutations = disabilities.
No they don't. This is likely the dumbest thing you've posted in this entire subthread which is amazing since your first sentence was already pretty fucking stupid.
To add, using a breakdown of only female to males age 15 and above the breakdown is pretty close to 50/50. So that sort invalidates your whole theory.
Data comes from: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Da...
This assumes there are equal numbers of men and women...
According to 2016 estimates of the South Sudanese population, the breakdown is about 46% men to 54% women. Hardly a huge imbalance with only about 12 million people.
Yeah, I love when a program has years-old security bugs because Mozilla had all but abandoned it for years. That inspires lots of confidence.
At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.
It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.
No matter how many times you repeat that it's still wrong.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Except you don't know how the law works.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
It is also illegal.
Nope, it's not.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
If they don't take ANY cash, though? Yeah, just waltz right the fuck out.
Yeah have fun going to jail when the business calls the cops on you.