The best way to change that is to legalize all personal drug use. If the War on Drugs was successful at accomplishing any of its stated goals then we could have a debate about this, but it isn't, and no honest person who looks into the matter would conclude otherwise. Anyone who wants to do drugs can easily obtain them.

The only things we can control are whether criminal gangs or legitimate businesses will profit from this, and whether law enforcement gets to keep its single biggest excuse for militarizing itself. The idea that we can stop people who want drugs from using them is a dangerous fantasy with staggering social costs and always has been.

If you really want to minimize the impact of the portion of drug users who are irresponsible, a small fraction of what we spend now could be put towards treating it as a public medical/mental health issue, not a criminal/law-enforcement issue. Treatment can be offered to those who need it. Legal drugs would be cheap, plentiful and unadulterated, making their use safer and removing the incentive for the worst of addicts to rob and steal to obtain them. It would also go a long way towards creating the expectation that people should be responsible adults who do not need to be told how to live by a paternalistic government that parasitically profits from their problems.

I can't speak for that poster but I can guess why he spelled it that way. "Liberal" used to mean something more like "libertarian" before its meaning was perverted and distorted from "liberal exercise of civil rights" to mean "liberal imposition of government power". Sometimes the term "Classical Liberal" is used in an attempt to reverse this deliberate and underhanded confusion.

Even "libertarian" itself has been deliberately distorted from "advocates a small government limited to a) public works, b) national defense, and c) law enforcement and those things only, imposing only those restrictions which are truly necessary for a healthy society" to its new co-opted meaning of "anarcho-capitalist who wants even police to be private security that not all can afford". The intent there is obvious: change it from something hard to really argue against to something easily demonized that most people will learn to dismiss without thought or examination.

You'll find that the more an ideal threatens the use and expansion of power, the more propaganda is applied to change the meaning of words until they finally represent the very opposite of what they once stood for. It's the real-life equivalent of George Orwell's Newspeak. The "languages evolve so absolutely every change is totally legitimate and should never be resisted!" crowd are more or less Satan's little helpers here. Like most of Satan's little helpers, they think they're doing a good thing and would be horrified to see the money changing hands, the intentional authors of propaganda (called "PR"), and the concept of "manufactured consent" that established itself in this nation during the days of Woodrow Wilson.

So anyway, I read that to mean "ill-liberal" as in "not liberal" and certainly not "Classical Liberal" like what that word once meant.

That's generally a bug, not a feature. You seem to like this show so you are probably inclined to tell us how they got it right, but still. This aspect is rarely done well in any show.

But to comprehend that, people would have to actually read and understand something before deciding to be against it ...

The USA is unique in the resources it can devote, and therefore the scale at which it can operate. Which is to say, it is unique.

How about reducing weight that we all have to drag around with us

So you're suggesting a large portion of the American population get off their fat asses and lose weight so they can increase their vehicles fuel economy?

You might as well ask a starving lion to put down that leg of zebra it's gnawing on.

Loads of people die in hospitals. Who knew? Dangerous places those hospitals.

If only you had healthcare free at the point of need.

World's biggest game of tetris....

Most tyres mix units. I have 220/50/R17 on mine - width in mm, depth in percentage ratio, and wheel radius in inches. This might seem utterly daft, until you realise that it makes dimension transposition quite difficult - you'll (almost!) always be able to sort the units into numeric order and get consistent results.

Q: How do you know you're tallking to a mensa member?
A: They'll have already told you.

To carry a package, yes... allowing packages to be carried over cities at this point would be reckless IMHO.

But I was more disappointed by this example of what is not allowed: "Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of a commercial farming operation."

You don't need a big, heavy drone to take pictures, and there isn't much to crash into on farm land. (Granted, the max altitude must still be limited to prevent collisions with larger aircraft.)

Now, maybe satellite imagery is or will soon be the cheapest way to do this anyways, and maybe moisture imaging is best done in non-visible wavelengths that hobby drones don't have. But those are market concerns. I don't see much safety concern in buzzing around a farm.

If you're doing 2000 liners, Perl also lets you do things like object oriented code, modularisation etc. It may not be the best tool at that job, but it's a pretty versatile one that scales quite well.

And you still get bad code. How about we stop blaming a language for what's clearly a wetware problem?

You can write bad code in any language. Perl is just more tolerant. That's a feature. It means you have more scope for writing _good_ code, with decently formatting, structure and idioms.

You don't have to do that of course, and you can continue playing with obfuscated code. But really - that's not the fault of the language you're using.