plagiarist

That's the point isn't it? You overpay a wealthy dude with connections to gain a node on nepotism graph.

Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

Well that one is the classic far-right talking point that overpaying to be denied healthcare is preferable to the bogeyman of "wait times." Their other popular talking point is that with private insurance you can choose which doctor explains that your coverage was denied.

Catastrophic events seem to wipe people out financially regardless of insurance status. I keep hearing of people divorcing so their former spouse can keep some assets while they are battling cancer. There's just no winning unless you never need care.

Heh. I hate having any attached cables, they're too easy to fray. But otherwise I am with you, I only buy wired headphones.

Occasionally mobs of hateful psychos will target individuals with harassment. There is absolutely not enough protection from unwanted messages, unwanted phone calls, false reports to SWAT teams, identity theft, who knows what else.

Simply remove protections and deal out massive fines to platforms hosting obviously fraudulent listings, they will figure out solutions overnight.

You are interested in providing something worth paying for. Other people are interested in maximizing ROI for ad spend.

It's glib, but allegedly they are losing money on those. Certainly compared to what they'd be getting with their usage-based pricing.

Unless you mean people are forgetting to use the maximum amount every month, or forgetting to cancel?

An assumption required to make capitalism work efficiently is that customers have meaningful choices. Trustbusting is one of the important roles of the government, if it were functional.

I love solutions like that. Like if you are splitting food, one person cuts and the other chooses.

It would probably improve my life that the internet dies, except there are no longer many third spaces. Those spaces that do exist are also recording my every movement anyway. As is my privately-owned vehicle that I took to get there.

I guess I am a 4A absolutist.

The original case is clear that that person's rights were violated. It certainly is reasonable for the officers to believe they could conduct a search in that case, so they should not have consequences. (Officers that do unreasonably violate rights should experience consequences, they currently don't.) But there's nothing in there curing the violation of rights.

It's so weird to me that this is possible. If that happened with other rights, it'd feel like, "oh, yeah, definitely these soldiers shouldn't have been allowed to live here. They do now, though, and will continue to. Sorry."

That interpretation is insane to me. If all it takes is, "haha, oops," to use evidence gained from an unconstitutional search, people do not actually have Fourth Amendment rights.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, knowing that civil asset forfeiture is a thing.

Which specific mass media are controlled by the left?

In retrospect, the part I quoted is very unclear for what I intended. I should have added more.

What's hard to believe is the data is apparently still allowed in the case. Like... how?

Of course you would set up another strawman for this. Yes, very intelligent, declining to support a business when their founders have odious politics is exactly the government's thought police enforcing wrongthink violations.

"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

[E]ven if there had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials had acted in good faith.

How is this even remotely a possibility?

If the only way to interact with a business is via Facebook or Instagram, I don't interact with the business.

Unfortunately this is more of a problem for me than it is for them. I hope my position on this becomes more popular over time so that everyone can stop using spy- and adware.

As soon as they find the side of the story they already agree with they know that the platform is a marketplace of ideas instead of a bubble.

Has the US ever opened a single DMCA perjury case against anyone?

Steal $20 from a gas station and it is jail time. Instead, steal wages from employees and double-charge customers to make it a civil case.

Those need to be banned, the billboard trucks (and boats) need to be banned, and the shockingly bright headlamps need to be banned.

The amount of people who are willing to tolerate the "cable-ization" of streaming services is far larger than those who will torrent

For a new business with $0 the individual running it will be the guarantor on those.

In general I agree with you, but on the other hand it is an agentic coding agent you should have isolated in a container or VM anyway

They can get a subpoena for that, too. The bike and the parcel are already long gone by the time police do anything. (Nor will they do anything other than file a report if you are lucky.)

A sound economic theory after we grant the assumption that all consumers have equal amounts of money.

Gore did win that election, but SCOTUS illegally decided it instead of a fair ruling requiring Florida to recount ballots using the same methods in all districts. Americans should have done general strikes and rioting.

I don't know about 9/11, but I doubt Gore's SCOTUS appointees would have made the incorrect decision on Citizens United. America would be in a better place today.