NoRelToEmber

They intend to neuter any opposition by ensuring every organization is riddled with politically-approved agents.

Prove you don't discriminate by having a chief diversity officer, then that officer makes sure only the like-minded can get/keep jobs. It is after all their job description - the not like-minded contribute to a "hostile atmosphere".

And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.

Think that over - states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age [1], transgender bathroom access [2], or not hiring enough minority-owned tunneling companies [3].

Only when it comes to enforcing federal laws that the federal government would rather not see enforced, do suddenly issues of standing and federal jurisdiction appear - as if states have no interest in who enters their territory.

States and their populations direct how the federal government should act by passing laws. That government then ignores those laws at their leisure, and prevents the states from enforcing them. Doesn't that sound a bit undemocratic to you? Though that accusation seems to be levied only when convenient, with little relation to its meaning.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-holding-school-...

[3] https://www.kiro7.com/news/federal-government-threatens-pull...

Is that how you got your username?

States agreed to some written terms, limiting their own sovereignty, to join a union. That union then ignores terms it dislikes. States try to enforce those terms, but suddenly the union changes tune, finds that enforcing (some) terms actually is important, and stops those states.

But preventing laws from changing from city to city is the real tragedy.

Deterrence being one obvious function.

That we have to do the bare minimum and learn English to access the anglosphere (or global scientific publishing, where if it wasn't English then it would be French or Latin or some other common language, and the issues would be the same) is not something you should spend an ounce of guilt, or even limited awareness, on.

And it is downright perverse that the fantastic scientific accomplishments, that drew the global scientific community to learn English to access them, get re-cast as "the world built for you", as some kind of unearned privilege.

The anglosphere, not the world. I assure you there are many parts of the world not set up for people like you. I live in one of them. We don't feel guilty about building our corner of the world for our own benefit. But we also don't see our home country as a mere economic platform open for everyone.

How does human genetic variation compare to e.g. different wild canine (sub)species, such as coyotes, red wolves, gray wolves, etc.?

By eliminating advanced school courses, perhaps? https://www.blackenterprise.com/parents-outraged-school-deci...

This sounds like interesting analysis - do you have a link?

> And how we are still unable to control our immigration.

You mean unwilling, and the "we" being politicians.

If the EU Commission proposed the appointment, then it's a safe bet the commission itself is captured/corrupt. Very corrupt, given how outrageous appointing a non-EU-citizen to a high-ranking EU political position is.

The usual trick of "false and harmful" lets whoever decides what is "harm" tilt the scales to their benefit. Inevitably, falsehoods that help their politics will be seen as less harmful than falsehoods that harm it. That's before it gets applied to statements of opinion, like "policy X will help/hurt our country".

Think about what it requires - to cut out or replace any signs of the culture it came from, that would cause any friction with the target culture. To trick the reader into thinking the world is one big homogeneous mush, where works coming from the other side of the globe don't contain anything that would so much as confuse them. Nothing that would require a translator's note or explanation.

It's not translation, it's butchery. It's making a sausage come out on one end, no matter what parts come in at the other.

At issue is compensation. The studios don't want to share the income they gain from your "impact". They want all the benefits of this new technology to accrue to themselves. Reminds me of self-driving cars coming with EULAs that forbid commercial/taxi use of self-driving.

"What do you have to be proud of, you didn't do that" vs. "You indirectly benefit from those things and are thus responsible"

So no, the US won't get any credit for their leading role in vaccines, antibiotics, MRI, the green revolution, etc.. But yes, it will be held responsible for carbon emissions.

This is not something that should require, in any remotely sane legal system, an explicit contractual clause to prevent.

[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sta...

This sounds like it should be a pretty big story. "Extremely dangerous to our democracy." On the other hand, it also sounds like it wouldn't be.

So a part-time, amateur citizen investigator/journalist gets spied on, but a corporate employed one is protected.

Unlike Grisham's depiction, however, the Scotts were white and their assailant was black. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(Grisham_novel)...

Past a certain size, it absolutely is. E.g. a food producer will have a much harder time entering (or staying in) a vertically-integrated market (as an independent entity), where all the grocery chains privilege offerings by producers they own.

Using other near-monopolies as argument for why new ones should be allowed to form will lead to a very consolidated market, which is exactly what anti-trust is supposed to prevent.

You say that as if it means that this acquisition then isn't monopolization. The solution is to sanction Sony, not to make things even worse.

"The slow blade penetrates the shield."

By now, seeing how selective condemnation of colonialism and slavery are (sometimes even turning into praise, such as with Spain/Al-Andalus, described as a "center of learning" by wikipedia, relegating the slavery of Spanish natives to footnotes), their real targets should be obvious.

She was asking his personal political opinions. Her only indication that it was bullshit is that he didn't say what she wanted to hear, or rather, print. Selective skepticism.