Brokkr

You want flaming for improper grammar, you have 2 flagrant violations in this post which absolutely does not detract from your message. You better continue going about your day not being bothered by this at all. Geez!

(I’m sure I made mistakes here too, go ahead)

Have you seen the Tom Scott video?

If it works for hamsters may be a properly built one could work for people, but there’s absolutely no ethical way to test that.

Also,

Good weird = fun to be around

Bad weird = scary to be around

Also, Russia has massive propaganda efforts in place to affect public opinion online. Deepening the divide everyone is definitely in their favor; especially while they would definitely like us to not pay attention to Ukraine.

Wait, Santorum isn’t in congress though…

It’s sounds like the democracy we have is not the one that you want. That’s fine, it’s also not the one I want. Again, I’d prefer to be able to choose between a range of progressive candidates. But either way they are both still democracies and we should keep on asking for better systems. I disagree that what we have is a completely undemocratic system, that would imply that our system is similar to Russia’s or NK’s and it simply isn’t.

I also want more choices, such as provided by ranked choice voting. However to say that our elections aren’t democratic is far worse of an insult to the sacrifices of the labors of prior generations. Voters may still choose anyone that they want, and that ability to choose is better in our system than it is in many other places in the world. It’s not the best though, and I would like to see us get there. But it is not fair to say that our election (run by the government) is no longer democratic just because an independent 3rd party is now going to register a different person on the ballots than their initial polling suggested.

It would be great if we had a system like that, but we never have and it is not part of the constitution. Political parties have always been allowed to choose any candidate by any means that they want to put on their ticket. They could even choose 2 people, but that would be a bad idea. This will continue to be true as long as we have first past the post elections (and the electoral college). Ranked choice voting would solve some of these problems.

The democratic election happens when we vote for the president. The primaries are basically large state by state polls. No one’s ability to vote was stolen and everyone who votes is still allowed to write in a name if they choose (but that is akin to not voting given our current system).

It’s FFRF lawyers though. They are already working at well below the high salaries that people typically associate with lawyers. They have these jobs because they believe in these causes and are trying to help the public.

Besides, the plantiff wasn’t seeking to cash in on the situation, they just wanted equal rights/benefits to be provided for all religious groups, which it sounds like they got.

I think taxes will get passed to the renters in this case. I remember in econ 101 that for inelastic goods (such as housing) there’s a way to calculate how much of a tax will get passed to the consumer (i.e. Renter). The more inelastic the demand, the more the tax is paid by the consumer because they don’t really have a choice. Raising taxes would probably just drive rents up and possibly make more people homeless or forced to choose worse living options (e.g. Domestic violence would likely increase).

Maybe this approach is meant to avoid this problem. It probably creates other problems though. But better shouldn’t be the enemy of good. The problem needs to be solved because using real estate as investment vehicles is destroying the financial futures of young generations.

The same source shows that Biden is up 2% since the 3rd, and a bit more over the past 10 days.

That’s from July 3rd…

This one?

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Show Biden behind, but not down to 20%. Why lie about that?

We know repubs project, a lot, so does this mean that repubs are illegally voting in droves?

As long as they do not interact with any other particles then yes.

Remember, in the photon’s frame of reference (i.e. It’s point of view), time does not progress. So it is created and destroyed in the same moment. Any distance traveled for any amount of time in our reference frame, happens instantaneously for the photon.

Lizards are cold blooded though, would their pee be warm?

There are a few games that you might miss out on with this method. Some devs (it’s not many) list their games at what they think is a fair forever price and will not ever offer the game at a reduced price. Again, this isn’t a lot of devs, but one notable one is Wube, makers of Factorio.

I generally agree with your method, mostly because I have a large enough backlog to be able to wait for sales, but it is also worth doing research on some devs to see if a sale will ever happen.

The section with the burning buildings and the big guy in the middle of the court yard just past the shallow water?

If that’s the section you mean, then you can safely come back after progressing the main line a little more. Getting the axe and the beating the guy on the horse are good pre-requisites. That will align the difficulty to be more consistent with the main line path.

Oh, wow, sorry. It’s just Thomas that’s throwing it way off. My bad.

Also, I wasn’t disagreeing with your point at all. You’re absolutely right. Just that somewhere you had an extra zero, but it doesn’t change your point at all: judges are cheap and a billionaire could easily buy them all for a small fraction of their wealth.

You added a zero somewhere.

Also, it seems like justices are charging on the order of 1 million, so a billion dollars gets 1000 judges. Still plenty for them to get whatever they want.