nickburns

that's quite literally an oxymoronic statement.

"Scientists believe its disappearance makes Venezuela the first country in the Americas — and the first country in modern history — to lose all its glaciers [emphasis added]."

Title inaccurate. This goes well beyond only 'Andean countries.'

EDIT: To the 4+ dol—I mean, people who have now downvoted this comment: 'the Americas' is commonly geographically understood to mean the land masses of both North and South America. There are glaciers present in both 'Americas.' The Andean mountains are only present in South America. Jesus, this place is stupid today.

> These are terrible points! Asserting that a special prosecutor is akin to a private prosecutor is absurd.

what, pray tell, is a "private prosecutor"?

my question being rhetorical and all, i already knew you couldn't.

> Just to let you know that he (like the rest of us) have already read it.

exceedingly doubtful.

> I have already read the opinion and came into the same conclusion

i sincerely doubt that.

can you find any comments anywhere here which seem to support " mobs attacking the Capitol or "find me some votes" or minority rule or massive roundups and detention camps or any of that"?

i'm a little busy cutting through the actual opinion at the moment. maaaybe i'll get to this Vox journalist's own interpretation of it when i'm done. no breath should be held though.

clearly you have a hard time distinguishing between who supports what.

> major, major events

okay, buddy. we get it. you're excited and it's making you sound Trumpian.

what a dramatic take. surely you haven't read the actual opinion.

for posterity, this is "the blueprint for a [sic] American dictatorship" to which you refer:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Only a psychopath would read the actual transcript.

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly.

This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent that would allow future wrongdoing corporations from 'shielding the veil' so to speak through bankruptcy. A win-win indeed.

You do not have to sign up for anything. SCOTUS opinions are freely-accessible public record.[0]

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

You've perfectly described life in the so-called Information Age.

spitballing: 'her' own hardcoded waveform is a hardcorded wake word exception. i have doubts that it'd be much more complex than that.

what i do find interesting, however, is that, at times, she'll wake to an utterance from some other media i have playing and seems to 'know' immediately that she was inadvertently awoken. the 'listening' tone and 'end listening' tones sound in quick succession. i do not have voice recognition enabled (to the extent that that setting is respected).

"The suicide rate per 100,000 people in 2022 was 14.3, according to a report from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention released early Wednesday. The rate was 15 in 1941."[0]

> Do you not believe that the suicide rate has increased over the last two decades?

per capita (assuming that's what you mean), that's correct. i do not.

we should stop now. very unproductive exchange.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40779141, citing https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/11/29/2022-suic...

> Rosy retrospection of what? I think you're just repeatedly invoking the term inappropriately.

don't be daft.

> Is the fact that suicide rates in the US have been rising steadily over the last two decades and are now at the highest point in the last 80 years also rosy retrospection?

i'll attempt to make my position clear one final time: i don't accept any of your premises as fact. not about the reason/s behind rates of suicide (who that's actually committed suicide can tell us why they did?), nor the statistical measurement thereof for that matter. not about rates of homework assignment nor "home range" nor "relative freedom of movement" nor the degree of parenting... intensity? none of it.

again, these 'phenomena', let's call them for the sake of argument, in my opinion, are not convincingly nor reliably quantifiable. you are also entitled to your own opinion, whether based on the opinions of others or conceived of yourself. but we should be careful when branding something as fact just because someone else has assigned some contrived numbers to their own unprovable opinion.

i grant you lazy response, and raise you another: the articles you cite are likely more rosy retrospection themselves. none of anything being discussed here is, in my opinion, reliably nor convincingly quantifiable.

that's obviously a striking statistic. do you have a cite for anyone interested in assessing for themselves the veracity of such a claim?

i get it. i really do. social media is not for the faint of conformant heart.

but devil's advocate and all—is there really a "crisis" afoot? is it really not just the modern version of teen angst?

double double-'L' opportunity: colloquiallisions.

phrasal portmanteau. phrasmanteau?

can you elaborate on why that's concerning (or otherwise remarkable)?

  how you gonna even attempt a crash landing if things go wrong?

autorotation[0]. the higher the altitude, the better.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation

by "localhost traffic" i've meant literally any traffic generated by a given device, its operating system, and any applications running on it, no matter the destination.

whose children? yours? husbandry of wild animals? huh? what's unlucky for whom? i dunno, man...

might i suggest anything narrated by Sir David Attenborough.

and all the humans were cheaply amused by the animal temporarily breaking free from its own captivity albeit thousands of miles and an ocean away from where it actually belongs.

petting zoos are still a thing? how quaint.