Future anthropologists might

Is there literally anything that would be worse to use financing to buy than DLC?

Virtually nothing in politics or economics is ever permanent.

First they’d have to get fusion power to produce net electricity, and then for it to produce it economically compared to other sources. We’ve made progress but it’s been decades in the making and I’d be willing to bet will be a few decades more, even if I do expect it to get there one day.

But what’s dystopian about fusion? It’s just another energy source. A bit cleaner than some of the older ones, but not really anything fundamentally different.

And why wouldnt he? After all, he wont be running for election again; either he doesnt manage to cancel the normal electoral process and isnt eligible, or does, and therefore doesnt actually need to run the risk of losing by making it fair enough to potentially lose. The only reason for him to care about popularity is ego, so if just insisting to himself and others that his decisions are popular is enough to convince himself of it, he will.

“As little as one hot dog a day”, doesn’t really strike me as a great example of a “small” amount of processed meat. I’d generally say I ate a lot of something if I had it literally on a daily basis.

States rights was never really an ideal (in general, if it’s wrong to allow something in one state, it’d be wrong to allow it in the rest, after all). It was just a thing to bring out whenever the federal government disagreed with something they wanted but some states didn’t. But now that they control the federal government, it becomes a liability, so they drop it.

Handedness

To be fair, indigenous in this sort of context usually refers to a colonial state where the ruling group is different from the one there before a colonial empire got there. I don’t usually see it used for populations that haven’t been subject to conquest and occupation like that within the last millenia or so, even if it could technically fit, it’d be a bit redundant.

Though if the history of, say, Ireland is any indication, historically when white Europeans end up in that kind of position they haven’t faired much better.

The whole two party system thing in general isn’t really a rule per se, you’re allowed to run as part of some other party or independent of one, for any office that I know of. In smaller local elections like town councils and such you can even be competitive that way. It’s just that the way we do voting, most of the time, means that for any election in which a reasonable number of voters participate, only two parties can be competitive and any more would actually make their side less likely to win. It’s a not originally intended side effect of the rules we use, that now serves to keep the existing parties’ monopoly on most higher offices.

I wonder if he actually got their representatives to try to negotiate anything, or if he literally just said there would be a cease fire in the hopes that the two sides would feel obligated to follow through once it was publicly announced.

It’s not laid out like Lemmy is, because Lemmy is basically the fediverse version of Reddit, while Mastodon is more the fediverse version of Twitter. I’m not very good at using that format myself so I can’t offer much advice, but from what I’ve seen, what your feed is like depends a lot on what instance you join, to a much larger extent than on Lemmy (it’s a much bigger userbase than lemmy as well to my knowledge). I dont know of any equivalent to communities per se, you have to join an instance that is good for the kinds of things you’re looking for, and follow users that post or interact with that content. I think a favorite is more like a like, and reblogging is more like reposting for one’s followers and imstance to see too.

They do technically have orbital launch capability, which implies they in theory have the capacity to construct an ICBM, even if not with a nuclear warhead necessarily. Granted, the results of such a strike almost certainly would not be worth the costs to them so I’ve no expectation they’ll do such a thing, but they probably could if they wanted to badly enough.

If that were true, Disney and a number of other large companies would not exist.

3rd? Surely there’s been more than 2 before?

The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.

Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).

What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.

I don’t really even have an age range I guess, I’ve never met anyone I was interested in dating.

To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn’t support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren’t harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.

Does the rule in question even apply to end users? All I had heard of it was that it put some kind of requirement on the website itself to identify people, which a person seeking out a noncompliant or foreign website presumably wouldn’t be the one violating?

In that case, do countries usually just take other countries at their word that anyone accused of being an illegal immigrant from that place is actually from where theyre accused of being from, or does the US have to, if it is trying to deport someone somewhere with a reasonably functional government, give that country some kind of evidence that theyre sending them one of their citizens before they agree to take them? For that matter, what happens if a country just stuffs someone on a plane going to another country without the consent of the country in question?