afaic you should be allowed to inject motor oil into your titties w a bike pump if you're capable of giving consent and it's something you want for yourself. for me the real issue is that there's already distrust around organ donation and things like that because "they'll just let you die so they can use your parts" and I feel like introducing a profit motive to the donation procedure strengthens that argument whether there is actually any more malfeasance or not. Simply increasing the number of people who benefit from it and the ways in which they might benefit makes it seem like there's more motivation to let patients die.
there's a difference between being a good and loyal fascist and being in with the fascists. you've actually hit on it. those valuable, productive and loyal nazis were allowed to do whatever they wanted without regard to the law when that benefited the party, then that same behavior that was legal and encouraged was what got them kidnapped and murdered by the party as soon as the winds shifted. The core belief of fascism is two-fold: selling someone down the river because you can and believing that either through compliance or raw power you'll never be the one sold down the river.
you are factually correct but realistically the office of the president cannot ask for anything without pressure, by nature of being the office of the president
I mean, anyone can fail to deliver their end of any agreement. They may have learned a harsh lesson about bargaining with Trump, but that doesn't mean that it was dumb to pursue the deal as negotiated or would be dumb to pursue a similar deal with someone who might actually follow through on it.
that and directing US dollars into crypto markets via the government. you can sell people on the idea with the same arguments that are currently moderately successful in convincing people to do things like buy gold as a retirement plan, and anyone who is holding crypto before the government "invests" in it will see incredible returns as demand spikes for an asset whose supply is intentionally capped. The crypto whales are suddenly in the presence of a crypto leviathan in the form of government spending, they not only make a ton of money but they can sell out without crashing the market (solving a huge problem, esp for shitcoin whales but realistically for major stakeholders in all crypto) and everyone who's actually involved in the decision-making process leaves with fistfuls of money from people who didn't meaningfully have a say in which bag they'd be purchasing or at what price.
is it humane to solve that problem by excluding people based on income? that's what your proposing, as that's how markets solve problems like this: if more people need a product/service than the market can provide prices go up and the poor are excluded. also not trying to be snarky but that's the choice in front of us. part of the problem with free market solutions to healthcare is the feasibility of walking away from a bad deal. in every other space prices are regulated downward by the buyers' ability to either buy something else or do without but there is no doing without emergency care and doing without preventive care is just deferring the cost until it's emergency care at punitive interest.
i feel like you've just accidentally stumbled upon primate-patching as an umbrella term that can be anything from monkey-patching to hominid-adjustment via apefoolery. As a coder for 8 years I know I'm personally capable of operating at any of these levels depending on the day and the strength of the local coffee.
okay but at least those are provably equivalent, unless my understanding is off. isn't that the whole impetus behind the idea of functional programming?
rare scotus W, but i strongly suspect that because this data is "owned" by someone other than the people that generated it that said owners will simply choose to voluntarily cooperate with government inquiries 100% of the time. You can suppress information if the government unconstitutionally compels google to turn it over, but I don't believe that you as a defendant could push to exclude evidence if it was willingly turned over by a third party that had the right to have it.
funny, because I started smoking marijuana and it actually got me out of my parents' house. I got my degree, got a career, got clean from everything else, got married and bought a house. i now work every day with other well-paid and well-regarded professionals and the preponderance of us that smoke weed every day just like Dr Dre ordered would be shocking to your sensibilities. maybe stereotypes aren't a good place from which to draw your worldview, because i think the primary driver there is less the truthfulness of the belief and more your comfort with it.
>Quick doctors appointment every 6-12 months on an opt in basis - just a check up to make sure you are partaking responsibly.
I'm in a medical state that does this and it's just hilariously corrupt. That checkup to ensure responsibility is nothing more than a drug fee. There is nothing to it beyond a phone call where they ask you if you still want to be certified and you say "yes".
i like the way that when ai does something good of course the people who built it should make a lot of money but when it does something bad no one is responsible