You misspelled it the second time.

I would agree. And I think the notion of teaching "Proper English" is less about saying common usage is wrong than it is with trying to slow down the fragmentation of the language into dialects. If you can teach one set of rules for the language as being "correct" and make sure everyone understands it that way, then at least you have a common starting point for all the different dialects, and hopefully keep people ostensibly speaking the same language actually able to understand each other.

Frankly, I'd go out of my way to NOT buy "real" diamonds but find the manufactured ones, instead. I'll choose the ones not supporting murder, borderline slave labor, and multinational anti-competitive practices and price fixing.

Please tell me you are just trolling. You can't just say breeding is an integral part of the sport, and you have in no way explained why it is or should be, or how it is better. Why can't you make it irrelevant and have the same sport?

Yes, but quite often the number who don't want the bar is even less. A very vocal minority rails against what they find immoral while dismissing claims that people want it - because if they want it, those people are dirty immoral deviants and should be ignored, anyway, right? This is the tyranny of the minority, and it happens constantly in politics.

I'm not arguing that. I was pointing out that the GP's point that the citizens didn't want these things is wrong - it's some citizens who do not want it.

This is pure and complete bullshit. If the community's citizens didn't want such a business there, the business would get no customers and close down naturally. What actually is happening is that a cabal of Bible-thumping prudes who wish to impose their sense of morality upon others forces these laws through in order to control the larger population.

I'm not sure about that, but if given the choice I'd definitely choose Batman as my personal Lord and Savior over the zombie guy.

The problem with this is that it would require issuing stock - which requires knowledge of securities law for wherever you are (and possibly wherever Kickstarter is). Issuing stock on Kickstarter would possibly count as an IPO, which gets even more complicated.

If this were to happen, the only decent, streamlined method would be for Kickstarter to have a staff to do it for you. Which could be good if you want to become a publicly traded corporation, but that adds more overhead in reporting and investor meetings/etc. as well.

Yes, unless there's a clause specifically setting a point in time that the delegation of power ends or needs to be renewed.

No, because they haven't legislated away any power. If an act of Congress grants or delegates a power, then another act of Congress can reverse that - if they really wanted to, Congress could pass new legislation revoking or amending the previous legislation. The only way they could permanently legislate power away is via Constitutional amendment - which, by definition, cannot by unconstitutional.

You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.

Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.

This is totally at odds with reality. Strong pushes in branding can and will warp public perception. If Google pushes ".dev = good developers" it will cause a branding in people's minds. At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have .dev, but eventually, as the .dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without .dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a .dev?

This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.

I'd actually think it was the other way around - I'm less blue colorblind which is why I always see blue, regardless of surrounding context. You've got slight blue colorblindness which is why context causes you to interpret the blue as a different color.

This could indicate another possible explanation; that in many people the color you first see it as becomes the "right" color, and it becomes difficult/impossible to see it otherwise, as your brain has already interpreted it, and is remembering the "right" color even if you're trying to see it "wrong".

I think their application for .dev to be Google-only highlights a major problem with a company like this having control over any TLDs: They intend to use their control to crowd out competitors in a monopolistic fashion. That no non-Google developer can register a .dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer. The only TLD restriction I would be OK with Google having reserved entirely for personal use is .google - and even that I'd be wary of without concrete rule for revoking the exclusive use if a good reason comes up.

I can only see it as blue, period. Not trolling - I really cannot see this as white in any circumstances, even the XKCD "color balanced" bit I still see it as blue (albeit a much lighter blue on the left).

Maybe this has more to do with some effect similar to color-blindness? There are more types of color-blindness than just the standard red-green, and they have different effects on how colors are seen (and some kinds of color blindness can actually make you see other colors better). Maybe this dress has highlighted a previously unknown type of color-blindness?