due to corporate IT policies

I think that answers your question right there. If you got the device outside of that realm, you'd probably have no issues. Talk to your security and IT people about why that is. There are huge security risks for people being admin over their systems.

For context, I run my home computer as a non-admin user most of the time, unless I need to make some deep changes, which is not often. Maybe once a month. This saves me from accidentally installing a rootkit or other software. I run my children and wife under the same context so they don't need to worry either. Yes, it takes me a bit of time to go through and approve some updates, but that's worth it to not need to worry as much about viruses and keeping data secure.

The amount of time it takes your IT department to do something is another complaint that should be directed at them. We get those kinds of complaints constantly, but it's the fact we have everyone asking the same things or completely meaningless ones. You're in the queue, please give us patience.

They put the milk in before the tea, so the pot lit itself on fire.

Reading the directions on these kinds of tests they say something to the nature of:

Any line, no matter how faint, is considered positive.

So, yes. I had the same result in December. Hope you start feeling better soon.

It's a free wifi service provided by the airline while on the flight. One ad, when most other places are charging $10-20 per flight? I'll watch the single ad. I'd rather that then someone, say, injecting adverts into sites and services. which is very possible.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-103 So, they're claiming commercial rights as an individual. I'm not sure any judge would want to deal with someone who doesn't understand the difference between individual and commercial. All of these I've seen deal with fighting their ability to drive a vehicle or child-support, so if it's related to that the judge wasn't getting puckered. He was getting ready to beat you with a mallet.

Is it still a thing? The website doesn't go anywhere and I can't find the app. All I can actually find are a few articles talking about how ridiculous it is to have a $2 subscription service on water fountains.

"Finance company owner purchases second home to get away from family"

There is the updated title. Not just a mother, a mother that owns their own company and wants to get away from family obligations. Do what you have to do to find peace, but this title does not express what is actually happening.

Confidence: having faith or belief in oneself and/or abilities

So, being confident during dating is just knowing you have what it takes to make it. Nothing about that is "bothering people", at least it shouldn't. Know what your character and abilities are and do your best with the rest. Dating is about learning what you're into and what they are into as well. Ask them questions that you'd like them to know about you as well, so you both learn. Date at places that are neutral and there isn't a ton of pressure. You don't have to be arrogant or loud, just know your worth and what you're good at.

You can do it. It sometimes feels like a lot, but you got this.

So, are we hoping this gets deleted as well to keep the tradition alive, or is this hopefully going to change moderation? I'm confused on how to feel about this.

Imagine the Super-Bug that would be created from this kind of thing.

Either it would destroy the world, or New York would become a complete haven of people totally immune to nearly all diseases.

It is definitely this. "You're not profilable, how do you expect us to sell you to advertisers?"

Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:

"SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf "(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation,

Which is duplicated here in some part here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1365

They're very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.