>(I'm beginning to think some people missed the sarcasm in my earlier posts.)
Yep. Given the forum and that you've been around here at least ten years, why would you think folks wouldn't take you at your word?
Be aware of Poe's Law[0]. Especially since there are way too many folks (I can think of at least a dozen or so off the top of my head) who would say the same thing unironically.
>Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.
To which Constitution are you referring? And which "parliament"?
The US Constitution can only be changed by votes by both supermajorities in both houses (House of Representatives and Senate) of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. We don't have a "parliament."
Are you referring to Canada's Constitution? Australia's? AFAIK, the UK has no Constitution and changes to Ireland's Constitution requires a national referendum.
>>You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both.
>Personal opinion, not legal opinion.
Fair enough. But not very charitable (or helpful/useful to freedom of speech) to anyone who doesn't have billions in cash on hand to fight the hundreds/thousands of lawsuits anyone who doesn't like what the thoughts of others that you (or I) choose to host on our platforms, whether they be web sites, mailing lists or video comment sections.
Section 230 protects the little guy much more than it does Meta, Alphabet, Musk, etc. As they have the deep pockets to fight those lawsuits. Do you? I don't.
>Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention.
I did and that's not at all what TFA argues. It argues that it's the corruption that's the problem, which is exacerbated by the lack of legal enforcement by the current administration -- mostly because many in that administration are either actively involved in said corruption, or happy to cover it up/pooh pooh it.
I suppose you might think that some folks who haven't read TFA might buy your analysis, even though it's pretty much the opposite of what Krugman argues.
>While I recognize the community value of religion and the comfort it brings people, it comes at a huge cost that far outweighs the benefits. IMHO, organized religion is a cancer on modern society. I think there's other ways to get the good parts from it but that's a team effort.
Those who abandon the Path are evil.
Those who reject the path to enlightenment must be destroyed!
>Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole
Actually, it doesn't even make the top 25[0]. So no, not really all that dangerous. Being around police, especially with a high melanin content is definitely more dangerous than being police.
To channel George Carlin: "It's not that I don't like the police, I just feel better when they're not around."
>I have donated ... multiple times. I wish there was a way to keep the "Please Donate" from popping up if we have donated within the last N days, weeks, months, etc.
Just to be clear, you're asking for Thunderbird to track all of its users and link them to the dates of payment, payment amounts and payment methods of all of its donors on all of their platforms so that you don't see a pop up once or twice a year? Is that correct?
I'm not being snarky here, but AFAICT you really didn't think that through.
How about a local option being able to opt out of fundraising popups instead? No tracking required. Perhaps you might file a feature request for either of the above?
>If these are really revolutionary tools that vastly optimize work, why bother forcing people to "try new models and best practices"?
"If the colleges were better, if they really had it, you would need to
get the police at the gates to keep order in the inrushing multitude.
See in college how we thwart the natural love of learning by leaving
the natural method of teaching what each wishes to learn, and insisting
that you shall learn what you have no taste or capacity for. The
college, which should be a place of delightful labor, is made odious
and unhealthy, and the young men are tempted to frivolous amusements to
rally their jaded spirits. I would have the studies elective.
Scholarship is to be created not by compulsion, but by awakening a pure
interest in knowledge. The wise instructor accomplishes this by
opening to his pupils precisely the attractions the study has for
himself. The marking is a system for schools, not for the college; for
boys, not for men; and it is an ungracious work to put on a professor."
It's okay. I appreciate the cover, but it's important to let this oppressed, hunted, hated and endangered group have their say.
There is, after all, a war on Christmas, Christians and Christianity.
Christian enclaves are being attacked and Christians are being murdered in the thousands every week, just for being Christian.
Hundreds of decent, god-fearing Christian women are being raped daily by strong, manly Muslim men. Their strong muscles rippling under their tight clothes, stirring up strong, lustful feelings among the faithful Christian men.
It's no wonder that folks are kind of touchy. If you risked being shot, blown up, cuckolded or otherwise made dead or humiliated every time you went to a church, made the sign of the cross or put a "Jesus is my Co-pilot" bumper sticker on your vehicle, you'd be concerned wouldn't you?
And that happens every day because people hate them for their knowledge of the truth. It's all there in the literal word of god that's in the Holy Bible. Anything else is heresy. And we know what to do with heretics, don't we?
Praying[0] is a good start! That, coupled with large amounts of suspension of disbelief[1] helps too.
I suggest drinking (or whatever your preferred brain-fogger might be) heavily. That helps you ignore the details -- because the "devil is in the details" and we mustn't have that, right?
[0] Also known as "begging an imaginary sky daddy for help"
Yep. Given the forum and that you've been around here at least ten years, why would you think folks wouldn't take you at your word?
Be aware of Poe's Law[0]. Especially since there are way too many folks (I can think of at least a dozen or so off the top of my head) who would say the same thing unironically.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law