Eating vegetables prevents cancers? Or not eating vegetables causes cancer?

Is this information being withheld from us by some sort of anti-vegetable cabal? Wouldn't it be easier for the corn producers to let us learn this and just sell us raw corn instead of corn syrup?

Laws are one of the tools we use to align the interests of groups that are potentially in conflict. Why aren't they a valid option here?

It's not artificial because of the details of the technical implementation, it's artificial because it's a scarcity that would not be expensive or difficult to resolve. Drought is geographic scarcity that cannot be readily resolved; an undersized water treatment plant is systematic scarcity that can be resolved but would be expensive and slow; a faucet that's rusted half-closed is artificial scarcity.

Why don't I want city-owned fibre? I'm a big fan of city-owned roads and city-owned sewer pipes.

FYI: Zerocoin is also a fiat currency.

The assumption that some sort of special merchant status will be required to accept non-physical payment strikes me as unfounded. Even today it's fairly easy for individuals to send money via ACH -- or a paper check, like individuals have used for years -- and it's not hard to imagine ways to make a similar process even easier and less dependent on banks.

Exactly which tools did he break, and in what way? Why didn't the people running those tools support charges against him? Also, what makes a "research tool" a "critical" system -- does someone die when the tool goes offline?

You don't have to venerate the guy if you don't want to, but please don't spread lies about the dead.

Exactly. It's not the Chinese are opposed to phone tracking, it's that Apple hasn't agreed to let them access the data.

Which doesn't necessarily make Apple the good guy, but having the Chinese government dislike them doesn't make them the bad guy either

No. It's not sufficient to be "factually wrong" -- the claims must be "knowingly false". You can issue all the "accidental" takedown notices you want without any fear of being sued over it. Which is nothing like 100 year ago.

First, the problems you describe exist in build HVAC systems as well. When you enter air conditioning from someplace hot it would often be nice to have a couple of minutes of cold air blasted at you. And there are lots of building spaces with very high throughput both in terms of people and airflow, but we don't just throw our hands up and say "thermostats can never work here".

Second, it sounds like you're asking for a smarter thermostat than the 20s technology in many homes. That's a perfectly reasonable request, but not nearly as exotic as you make it out to be. Even sub-$50 home thermostats do things like predictive pre-heating/pre-cooling to meet scheduled setpoints, control of multi-stage or multi-element systems (i.e. support for a single air handler with multiple heating or cooling elements, or a multi-speed air handler), and have the ability to override automated regulation with manual inputs when desired. It's all well within the realm of possibility for car, and has been for years, it's just poorly done which was the original complaint.

A thermostat still provides a simple "I'm too hot" and "I'm too cold" control. It just means that variations in engine temperature don't require me to adjust the climate setting. Likewise cars could still provide multi-zone control, both with their own thermostats, to accommodate the scenario you note above.

Guns make people more effective at suicide than many other tools. Eliminating guns wouldn't solve the underlying problem, but it would move some numbers from the "suicide" column to the "attempted suicide" column, and at least some people see that as desirable.

You are allowed to be offended. That's a perfectly valid feeling and anyone that tells you otherwise is probably wrong.

But society places all sorts of restrictions on individual freedom. The trade been individual freedom and the power of collective action is the basis of society -- we agree to protect you from murder, and you agree not to murder anyone. We've long since agreed not to socially acceptable to call people names they don't like, unless that label is itself contrary to societal values and factual (i.e. murder). It's literally one of the first things we teach children, and it's a more or less globally held value.

If you'd like to change that belief, or convince us that your beliefs are tolerable in society, feel free to try. No one will stop you -- you've already posted to the public Internet and I'm reasonable certain that no one broke down your door and arrested you for that post. But if you hope to convince us though, you might consider avoiding straw men. No one is preventing use of the term "redskin", demanding reparations for previous use thereof, or even suggesting that such things should happen in the future. No one is suggesting that hurt feelings are a reasonable basis for legal decisions.

I'm not sure using centuries of gender discrimination as an example is the best play when trying to defend this position.

It's also unclear to me why other people having feelings that don't align with yours poses some threat to your rights. What right of yours is being impeded by allow the individuals and groups may choose their own names, like they have since the dawn of time? Is someone discussing a criminal or civil statute that would apply the standard of "at least one person is offended" and impose some penalty or restriction on that basis?

The person or group being named gets to decide what others should call them. This has been true since time immemorial, and it has always been considered disrespectful to do otherwise. It's particularly offensive when the term being used is itself derogatory, as is the case here.