NoSorryCannot

Even if it _did_ suggest that, the conclusion that that would make it pornographic is very silly.

Such a thing would still most probably be intended as a critical observation about the sorts of people that innocent babies become, rather than a literal depiction of a baby prostitute.

It's wow ridiculous.

I didn't mean to imply that it was any less arbitrary (the arbitrariness of the numbers is disputed in other threads), only that I view the feds setting that number as overstepping.

I say leave the number-choosing to the states.

Regulate medical marijuana like any other non-scheduled drug and leave cultural decisions concerning recreational use to the states, where it belongs. Use federal funding stipulations as leverage when needed.

You don't necessarily even have to tunnel, like one would do with a borer. I think that would be cost-prohibitive.

Trench and cover, probably with streets.

But it would create a lot of extra void to maintain that would need its own drainage, maintenance to keep it free of debris and pests, inspections to make sure they don't collapse, and security to keep people out. Feasibility is probably commensurate with urban density.

Definitely. We all stand to be disappointed by the direction the wind blows, depending on how we feel about this issue.

No, it isn't reasonable and I don't care on an interpersonal level what you do as an individual, I only care about policies informing me on what I can expect in communal spaces.

As more businesses, employers, and institutions arrive at policies one way or the other regarding the vaccine, then you can make a personal decision about what to do about that. No, you will not be able to raise any random objection and override the entire enterprise. It doesn't and can't work that way.

It is unreasonable to expect every spurious claim to be engaged with. They are endless and an awful lot of them are based on irrational fear and tribalism so they likely can't be persuaded no matter.

I am not pleased about the "both sides" rallying cry heard on every topic. It presumes that there are only two sides (recall that the objections will be endless) and it presumes they are both in earnest and have a reasoned predicate for their existence. This is not usually the case.

There is of course real, actual debate going on about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. These are based on research and data and there is no shouting. Then there's the "anti-vaxx" movement, rooted in party politics and paranoia. Screw that.

If this is your stance, then walk the walk and stop replying.

A lot of words can seem tortured if we try to make them work in some way they just don't.

People don't usually say they will invest in something that will imminently be used up. It can be food, but only if you're going to hold onto it for a while, e.g. disaster prep. They do say things like "I decided to invest in a new suit." There is a rule here though I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps the etymology[1] is helpful (but also perhaps not and it's just misleading).

Anyway, this usage isn't necessarily rendered invalid because some domain has a more specific and contradictory definition, much as botanical fruits don't make tomatoes any less of a vegetable in the kitchen.

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/invest#etymonline_v_12190

Plants can get tumors as a result of mutations.

However, they don't develop metastatic cancer because plant cells are not mobile as they are in animals. A malignant mutation won't spread. And they don't have central organs like hearts, lungs, etc. that can fail and kill the organism.

So, if your plant has cancer, you can just cut it off.

The message, I'm pretty sure, wasn't that it was that kind of garden. Just that the landscape was already heavily transformed by the time Europeans arrived, but the Europeans didn't know that and assumed what they saw was its wild state.

It's not limited to California, either, as it's now suspected that North America's vast inland prairies were largely created by people setting fires and that we'd see something closer to forests if it were truly untouched.

It's not an implausible degree of control to have. They weren't fighting fires, they were setting them.

They literally are entitled to be there (public land) and to take photos (of literally anything visible from public spaces).

The inappropriate entitlement is from whomever put up those signs and harasses people when they come near.

My words do not imply that.

It's a cop out to defer to individual responsibility and ignore all the other tools that are available to improve public health. We know that there's a rich corpus of psychological research that provides tools that we know can be used to affect behavior and choices. It's being used to sell us things that are bad for us and that same research should be used to inform regulation policy and public health communications.

If advertising works on average, then there is a discussion about ethics that is worth having.

Falling back on individual responsibility might be popular but it is absolutely a cop out. We're playing a numbers game with public health in an adversarial environment. Relying absolutely on what individuals could or should do isn't going to help us win that game.

Public speaking carries real potential for negative outcomes. I don't think fear of it is irrational.

With experience and exposure, we learn how to manage risk and what our limits are. Same is true of learning to swim or learning to drive, but it's not true that a fear of swimming or driving is irrational or unwarranted for someone who hasn't done it often or ever. No, it's completely appropriate.

There are rarely any good reasons to wet the top of a plant and several downsides.

Dust generally isn't an issue for outdoor plants, especially not in Washington or Oregon, and especially not for deciduous trees.

Samantha Bee is not a talking head being laundered by news outlets into something like reporting.

Who is pretending they can't tell the difference?

As a lowly end user not intending to widely redistribute the content, I decline this absurd level of responsibility, and the doctrine of fair use would tend to agree.

And as long as websites tend to modify, delete, move, or otherwise play games with urls and content, I will see value in saving a permanent copy. That I should be able to do that is frankly how the internet was intended to function; if that's not desirable for the content, then perhaps it should not be published on the internet at all.

For Pro SKUs on up, group policy isn't exactly obvious but it is more effective. You can disable automatic downloading or installation of updates, and you can disable forced rebooting. You can also disable Cortana, most telemetry, and some other things. I've yet to see it messed with by an upgrade and it applies no matter what network you connect to.

There is Arcimoto, an operation based in Oregon. I think in some places their vehicles are grouped with motorcycles or something along those lines. I've seen them zipping around San Diego and other places.

Refusing to break backward compatibility is how you end up with some of the uncomfortable anachronisms that can be found in PHP and MySQL and other things. A language that did backward compat arguably well is Java but it had to be extremely conservative, a property that has made it popular to replace wholesale with languages that are nothing like Java.

If it helps, you can convince yourself that Py3 is a different language that just happens to be very similar to Py2, and that Py2 needs new maintainers. This happens all the time.

Almost everyone knows that the model year is part of the, idk, "minimal tuple" for identifying vehicles, though, and you can count on it always appearing in e.g. advertisements.

In CPU land, the architecture codename or process node might be part of such a "minimal tuple" but these are frequently omitted by OEMs and retailers in their advertising materials.

I suspect you're choosing the parameters of this venn diagram to most efficiently reject viewpoints you disagree with without having to engage with them.

It appears at least that your perception of others as being for increased government control, a property you infer about them rather than how they describe themselves, has meant you haven't had to think carefully about the merits of lockdowns, emergency FDA approval for novel vaccines, or other measures seen in the past year. They're suspicious machinations of the government therefore we can reject them out of hand, evidently.

If they wanted people to be able to resell titles while taking a cut, they could easily facilitate that now. Why would Valve turn to NFTs to solve that problem?

I can see the business appeal of the prospect of being able to skim off the top of second hand sales while maintaining a thread of DRM enforcement along the way, but it's pretty cynical and at the expense of consumers.

Most other uses, like whether some particular series of bits have been blessed by a particular person and to the benefit of whom, seem to already have been solved by the nonrepudiation of digital signatures.

It appears to me that the distributed and public properties of the block chain are not being used for good here.

I don't necessarily agree that it's clear cut lying but I do think it's deceptive. Claims with asterisks are an awful invention by advertisers with lawyers. Price tags as widely understood do not encode savings beyond the time of sale.

Similarly, the public has a definition for what "unlimited" means and mobile carriers using asterisks to redefine the word is exploitative.

Why do you think being able to classify the parts of speech would make someone more authoritative on correct usage than native speakers? Imagine documenting a language you don't know, identifying the tenses and the verb order, and finding something surprising so you decide it's the speakers who are wrong and not your model!

The measure of "consumer welfare" used by US antitrust is mostly concerned with prices, which I've always thought was a bit cynical but it is what it is. Do consumers stand to pay higher prices when a single company controls the production, licensing, and distribution of content?

I would argue yes and the government has argued it, too, when they forced movie studios to divest their stakes in movie theaters.

The public roadways have never been especially free, not as in beer nor as in speech. It's a pretty unfortunate choice of setting for expressing individualism. Many have put some of their identity into how or what they drive anyway, of course.