Strang

This completely locked up my laptop. I had to hard power down.

Grammatical possession does not imply property. "My grandmother," "my hometown," "my skeleton," etc.

Thanks!

FYI, Twitter links aren't really reliable any more. When I click that link, I see just one message promising a thread but no thread.

That's exactly his point. You don't hear the apostrophe but you do hear the "s," meaning that Thomas and Thomas' cannot be distinguished. And so Thomas's must be used instead.

Uh that was supposed to be https://ahdictionary.com

American Heritage is much better. They respond to usage, but much more conservatively. And their entries will actually have brief explanations from their "usage panel" about ambiguous or changing meanings.

https://dictionary.com

Important distinction. "Widdling" is urination.

Corporate personhood includes the ability for corporations to own property, enter contracts, and serve as plaintiff or defendant.

And corporations have civil rights only as a tool of shareholders' civil rights. For example, Citizens United was a corporation formed expressly for the purposes of political speech.

The right to assembly is a restriction on the government, not private enterprise.

I am very thankful for tipping in the US. It provides an incentive for better service, allows me to express my gratitude to waitstaff directly, and gives me influence over the pricing that I do not have in any other kind of transaction. It's great!

> as you’ve probably already entered payment information into the Microsoft ecosystem either for buying apps or movies on the Microsoft Store app or for making similar purchases via your Xbox.

Is this really that common? I've never interacted (directly) with the Microsoft "ecosystem" in my whole life, and I've been a Windows user that entire time. If I was going to purchase a movie or an "app", the Microsoft store is not the place I would go.

Derangement loci

"racists from David Duke to Charles Murray"

I disagree that the absence of a word to link these two ideologically is a fault of the English language.

Well-informed, good-faith disagreement is possible on a range of topics, including this one.

You are right. I would amend my comment to limit it to a non-peaceable assembly.

I don't doubt that police escalate unnecessarily either.

I'm not even making reference to any current situation. I'm just assuming that there exists a scenario in which it would be reasonable and necessary for the police to dissipate a crowd. Is there a way to do that without rubber bullets and tear gas? Will this create a gap in the "use of force continuum" that will now be filled with something more unjust?

I don't doubt anything you are saying here, and I agree with the idea that "nonlethal" weapons are often used irresponsibly.

But what is the alternative? What are police supposed to use for crowd control? (This is not a rhetorical question. Are there other theories, strategies, or technologies available?)

And just to state explicitly: I believe it is unjust and counterproductive to allow a crowd to seize control of a common area, even if they are motivated by grievance or message.

"X has been silent on Y," is generally not a fair criticism. Not speaking about a topic is the norm, since time is finite and there are uncountable numbers of issues to discuss, even within a specific topic.

I think "more is less" is more accurate. These days, my list of antifeatures is more of a consideration than desired features when shopping for an appliance.

My TV has a terrible display but doesn't know how to connect to the internet, for example.

> I struggle to buy this line of thinking that, somehow, the epidemic [...] is the consequence of discriminatory systems or conspiracy or racism.

I agree, but I do think it's largely the unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy. Policies that were designed in part as a safety net for single mothers seem to have perversely incentivized family breakdown.

What did you find disappointing about the comment? Why not reply to it?

Fair enough. I assumed from his comment that he meant mainstream political Conservatism.

Big-C Conservatism does of course include a lot of small-c conservatism.

> seemingly illogical conservatism

I'd suggest you engage more with your fellow citizens and their ideas. Conservatives believe in their ideas just as earnestly as others and it is possible for people of good faith to disagree on fundamental issues.

Opposition to "social justice" typically signals that one does not believe that "social justice" equates to fairness and equality.

Great idea for a puzzle. It really needs a grid and an undo buffer.

Completely off-topic, but this headline is an excellent example of why we shouldn't let companies stylize their own names and brands. It's unreadable in its current state. "via" should of course be capitalized, no matter what the company's "brand guidelines" say.

That's a very unconventional view. I'd argue that as presented it is based on an over-simplification of copyright. Specifically, "something that didn't exist before the person who created it" and "everyone can have as much of it as they want so long as they're willing to create their own" do not seem to accurately describe copyright law to me.

I was mostly referring to state and local government as an alternative to the Federal Government.

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that most voters in the US have been duped into their beliefs by bad-faith argument concealing the "true" agenda?