swiftcasty

Who else is better equipped? In my view it would solely depend on the lawyers that internet archive hires, and money plays a big factor in that.

Also, internet archive is going through the route process of how legislation gets overturned or upheld. Just because you perceive them as unworthy to bear the challenge doesn’t make that true, and as a result your commitment to not support them because they aren’t the one true chosen is ill-informed.

you don’t have to go far, look at one of the comments here in the replies

Later in the article

The warmest summer in the tree ring reconstruction before industrial times was year 246, but the researchers say that even this does not come close to the recent warmth.

Even taking account of the large uncertainties, the authors say summer 2023 surpassed this range of natural climate variability by 0.5C at the very least.

It is also worth looking at the graph later in the article, which shows that over the past 2k years the temperature has maintained a baseline, and post-industrial era it turned into a hockey stick.

Why am I seeing multiple news reports today about Joe Biden where they remove context to polarize his comments further? This feels, to me, like a new media trend

“Violent protest is not protected — peaceful protest is," the president said. “It’s against the law when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest.”

The president also said “no” to a separate shouted question asking whether he thinks the National Guard should intervene in the campus protests.

The President is condemning violent protest and destruction of property here. It is still disheartening that this hasn’t changed his stance on Israel/Palestine.

The leotard in question is worn by the model on the far right who, even though she is cut off, visibly has her hands covering her groin area. Perhaps a re-design is in order?

Solemnizing a marriage = officiating
People can already refuse to officiate weddings, this bill is symbolic posturing

cringe

My problem with Singer’s approach is that it is intent agnostic; it paints with broad strokes and claims that causing bad things, whether intended or not, is evil. It also claims that failing to stop bad things from happening is evil.

Me putting on a clean shirt after a workout, even though it will increase my laundry water usage, is not done maliciously. So I don’t think that is evil, even though drought exists somewhere in the world.

And if a child could stop a robber by turning a key in a door, but is too scared to do so, that doesn’t make them evil.

On the other hand, if I chose to drive a car that can roll coal specifically so that I could cause ill effects (such as upsetting or doing harm to people or the environment), that would be malicious and therefore evil.

I remember seeing this argument about billionaires and corporations leaving the US if they are taxed fairly at a national level. If that were the case then 1. The US wouldn’t lose out on revenue it wasn’t losing out on already, and 2. The “free market” or the government would adapt to fill the abandoned niche.

Hard sell that good guys would bulldoze people.

In the list of the top ten most likely places for violent crime to occur in the US, gas stations and convenience stores are 3rd or 4th depending on the year. Not so random.

Dawson found that individuals with higher cognitive abilities were less likely to fall into “extreme optimism” about their financial futures. In contrast, they were more likely to have realistic or even pessimistic expectations. For example, those with cognitive abilities two standard deviations below the mean exhibited a higher probability of “extreme optimism” compared to those two standard deviations above the mean.

The short-sighted take here is shutting down conversation through fear-mongering. You are not taking into consideration that American car mfg’s would compete on price and that Chinese EV’s would have to meet safety standards.

I would like to see the US develop affordable EV’s independently of China, but I remain doubtful thanks to corporate greed and rampant lobbying.

Musk claimed the Cybertruck is better than any other truck but also more of a sports car than any other sports car, made of a “special Tesla designed steel alloy” that he claimed will never rust and which cannot be stamped but which can also be produced in volume.

The skepticism is coming through very heavy and I’m all for it.

Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck—which weighs 6,603–6,843 lbs (2,995–3,104 kg)—will destroy the other vehicle.

It’s a car, not a battlebot. Nobody should want to destroy the other vehicle in the event of a crash.

My friends and I enjoy sharing our results with each other every year. IMO the problem arises when results are shared with advertisers or without my knowledge.

deleted by creator

You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.

This is a weird take to me. One of the groups is not like the other two in your own example. It is obvious that there is a huge wealth gap driven by unregulated capitalism which is contributing to the problem, and multiple studies have shown that homeless people that receive free money (i.e. a universal basic income) use that money to stop being homeless.

Now please create one that’s designed to eat carbon dioxide and methane