If the building was in fact "boarded up", then it might be hard to argue that it was someone's home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.
If the building was in fact "boarded up", then it might be hard to argue that it was someone's home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.
Poor hygiene, teeth grinding, and accidents (from being neurotic on meth and falling, running into things).
"What gain does someone get from unnecessarily punishing him longer?" Safety. If you have someone who commits a premeditated murder (insane or not). Then granting them the opportunity to do it again is a serious risk.
Additionally, schizophrenia doesn't just completely go away. Most cases are episodic, the fact that he is fine now does not mean he's "cured". You at the very minimum need to be able to force continuous treatment until his death.
The fact that punishing people serves little utility, doesn't mean that you should release murderers. The fact that protecting society by imprisoning people, "punishes" the people does not mean that you shouldn't protect society by imprisoning people.
"putting a foot on the ground"
You mean a ground invasion? Which they've already started. The bombing is just to minimise Israeli casualities.
Mathematicians are good at writing algorithms, but not at the development aspect, which is basically building for different systems, packaging software and documentation.
I would disagree on the performance part, the vast majority of software developers aren't writing high performance software and the ones that are tend to be computational mathematicians or physicists.
You're literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it's pretty easy to create websites. It's purely optical, you're not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.
"so it does seem like the power to do this is electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch"
Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.
Court expansion has always been done by Congress, it's interpreted as an extension of it's power to create courts.
Correct, this is literally how market economics works. The real question is why they weren't able to do it before, since they had the incentive already (and always do).
Unless it's edited, that seems to be the exact opposite of what they are saying. They even clarify using the same poor English.
Ukraine also engages in a fair amount of propaganda (so much so that US and UK intelligence regularly contradict them), so asking for evidence isn't too unreasonable.
China has absolutely zero interest in negotiating arms treaties, they aren't quite in a full arms race with the US. The way arms limitations treaties work is if there is a rival state that will always match or exceed your armament, then you actually have an incentive to stop. If you don't have such a rival then you can always ensure that you are on the top and ignore any treaties.
The outliers don't make the rule.
On the subject of outliers, are we supposed to assume that a user named MycoBro (a user who references smoking marijuana and having a particular interest in identifying Psilocybin cubensis) is actually academically interested in fungi, and not one of the vastly more common abusers of poisonous mushrooms?
Because anti-Semitism has a German origin and has been used primarily in the West to refer to discrimination against Jewish people.
The fact that it doesn't cover anti-Iraqi or Palestinian sentiment, does not mean that you can't identify them, which you are so bizarrely claiming.
I think it was the Mindy Kaling episode where she tried to convince the gang to relabel their champagne as "Liberal Tears" (because wine/whine).
"Cops often plant evidence to get convictions"- Police don't prosecute, get your conspiracy theories straight.
"This was a targeted killing"
It almost certainly was, the victim was involved in drugs and probably knew violent people and kept in touch with them.
The real case is far more likely to be "reformed drug addict killed by former acquaintance", than "journalist killed for reporting issues".
I concur. This is really fucking stupid. The only actual advantage that airships have is loitering time, and solar aeroplanes can already loiter for months albeit with a small payload.
If you really care about the environment, make it an unmanned post and use more efficient (because it's lighter) and abundant hydrogen. Chance of explosion is pretty low, and if it does who cares.
"A deradicalising effect"
I'm sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.
I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.
If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren't the radicals you need to be concerned about.
"And those people diffuse back into the general population"
Because that doesn't happen to a greater degree when exposed to the "general population" on the same website?
"Assume ultimate legislating ability"- Unless you are whining about Marbury v Madison, what on earth are you talking about? SCOTUS doesn't write laws, they rule on the permissibility of (a small fraction) of them.
"Impractical supermajorities"
Did you just discover what checks and balances are? One should want supermajorities because you don't want laws based on shaky public support. Do we really think the cycle of each president overturning the previous presidents policy is practical?
Biological sex is generally considered to be distinct from gender.
Price hikes in a manufacturing context are simply rationing with extra profits, atleast until you build out greater capacity.
At some points it was "superior". Elements was used as a textbook throughout Europe and the Arab world, because it was one of the first and few books with rigorous proofs. If course it was probably compromised of previous works, but there was really nothing else like it.
Splitting individual atoms isn't that difficult, you just need a neutron supply and some material (paraffin wax works) to slow them down and it will eventually happen at least with uranium. Doing it reliably and efficiently is a much harder problem.
Hotels are way worse. It's all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.
You can do both? If you contract someone to provide you with a car, and they go out and steal a car and give it to you. You didn't actually commit that crime, because the contract wasn't to commit a crime it was to provide you with legally permitted service.
Charter flights are usually handled differently than public flights to begin with, because the clientele (usually groups of related people) and legal contracts are different.
Encryption only works if certain parties can't decrypt it. Strong encryption means that the parties are everyone except the intended recipient, weak encryption still works even if 1 percent of the eavesdroppers can decrypt it.
"It's also a bad thing"
You realise you can change laws? Congress does it regularly. The Constitution primarily restricts the type of laws that can be passed. Congress has huge leeway otherwise.
You could write bindings to machine-prime . Hardly anything challenging for an actual programmer, but I'll take the free labor if it is available.
Do people either make money or think they'll make money simply by using the Fediverse? One can certainly advertise via guerrilla marketing on a Fediverse platform but it's far more lucrative to advertise on mainstream social media.
What? Even if you engaged in charity solely to "glorify God", why would welfare prevent you from doing that? Do you think welfare programs steal glory from God? Do you think that religious people think this way? (Outside of the literally mentally ill, no they don't. They view charity as a moral obligation, not the only mechanism by which to "glorify God". Just like any normal effective altruist).
"Just for your community over other communities"- Again, what? Improving the conditions of your community isn't harming other communities. People in other communities also have a responsibility to improve their community, and there is nothing preventing one community from helping another.
"Helping people is just an accident in pursuit of those causes"-If it was just an accident, then surely it would be avoided? Let's not forget that these causes are "glorifying God", and either harming or ignoring other communities.
It's okay to criticise trying to apply individualistic practices on a systemic scale, but you're just fabricating nonsense to try to justify how you already decided to feel.
F-22 and F-35 were both deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The F-117 wasn't a fighter and never engaged in air-to-air combat (because it couldn't, it was subsonic had poor maneuverability and no active radar) so the F-22 and F-35 both meet the same standard that you are using for "combat" with the F-117.
How did I lose the argument? I claimed that the user is probably a drug addict, they denied it. There is really no proving or disproving either claim.
The actual argument I made, that MycoBro's personal experience has little relevance, was completely unaddressed. Literally read any of his response, all of it was about consuming mushrooms, absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of anecdotal experience.
I merely made my last response because I found the clearly vitriolic analogy to be humourous, and the rest of the comment had nothing of substance.
Sure but what degree of influence is actually "radicalising" or a point of concern?
We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can't just force people to accept them.
I think a good example of this was the "fall" of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn't care because they never cared about him.
80 percent of voters haven't read political theory.
Religious delusion and ignorance isn't really unique. Nobody actually meets rigorous standards of knowledge for anything they ascribe to.
No, because there is way more to life than just emergency medical leave.
For most people they're not going to be using that leave, they'd much rather have the money instead of it being taxed from them. Additionally it is much easier to get a job in the US and it generally pays better.
I don't know what country you live in, but ones that have extensive labor protections often have very high youth unemployment (people with little experience can't get hired), because businesses are unwilling to take risks on potentially bad employees if they can't terminate them or have to pay out a lot of money to do so.
It's popular to demonise America, but there are also a lot of problems the US doesn't have.
Again, no. Cops can detain and investigate without making a formal arrest or bringing someone to jail. If it is questionable circumstances, then they will simply take statements and go for an arrest later.
There actually is a circumstance where police are incentivised to plant evidence, and that's if you have a problematic individual (someone who gets the police called on them regularly), and planting evidence of a more serious crime would remove them from the street.
This criticism is dumb.
Carrying over sick days is fine because the employer already alloted pay for that. Sick days are no different than vacation days from a fiscal perspective, the only difference is you don't need to schedule them and/or there may be specific laws about them.
You then claim "accruing sick days will make people want to use them"-
"I love how you skipped right past"
Second paragraph addressed that this simply isn't an actual issue.
"Go write an op-ed on all the great profits to be made"
Seems a little an unusual that someone who thinks profits are somewhat immoral (unless redirected towards beneficial goals), is characterised as hyper-capitalist or "management type" simply for pointing out that the narrative of people becoming impoverished due to an increasingly exploitative labor market simply isn't true.
Is it really a quasar when you use no actual physics calculations?
Nope, just like George Orwell you are asserting an unsupported form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
"Doublespeak" doesn't fundamentally change how people think, it is just deception by obfuscation.
The fact that the word anti-Semitism doesn't include anti-Arab sentiments is not the cause of why anti-Arab sentiments are not as criticised. The Holocaust is why anti-Semitism (the concept and by extension the word) holds a place of special concern. (And Islamic terrorist incidents are why anti-Arab sentiments are more accepted).
This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.