Hey Sully! Why didn't you dodge those geese?

... can just pull out of San Francisco.

The whole idea of building one's reputation through the fear among neighbors and the world in general should have died out after WWII. Territorial gains and colonization don't mean squat any more. The losers of that war went on to build great cars, cameras and other machinery within their own borders. Russia needs to figure this out. If they can't excel at home, why do they think that more land will help?

Because the people with the cameras (or now social media services) set it up to be that way. Our politicians have to spend an entire year campaigning to obtain or hang on to their seat. And do do that, they have to pay the publicity gate-keepers. Dearly.

Hence the need to accumulate massive war chests of $$. Just to remain in the public view. And the processes to do so invites massive corruption and ass-kissing of wealthy special interests.

Our election system was designed when candidates had to ride on horseback and then steam trains from town to town to rally the public behind them. Today, that news travels at the speed of Starlink. But the news outlets need to keep it stretched out to maximize their income.

F* the news outlets.

Subject line trim

Now it reads: How about getting rid of the first past the POS

This. As long as the legislators are allowed to "re-form" coalitions on a dynamic, issue by issue basis.

But things tend to devolve when the coalition needs to delegate privileges. Like selecting a Prime Minister. Once power is in the hands of a group, it's very difficult to claw it back, short of a vote of no confidence.

On a positive note, BAIFH did back up your results to the Purity Test to a public folder on Google Drive.

What user would trust a crypto where they couldn't read the blockchain?

The "Trust me, bro" coin?

Okay. Thanks for all but admitting that exactly none of those needs are actually solved by the feature we're talking about.

You don't have a need. You just don't want your routine to be disrupted by a company taking away a feature that works for you. And it's entirely okay to feel that way. But it's not really a good reason to have designed such an overly complex and, at least in the real world, frequently under-performing protocol in the first place.

Keep telling yourself that I'm the one who doesn't understand the tech if it helps you sleep at night.

Then neither will casting, because casting by definition requires the TV to have Internet. It's a handoff process whereby the TV itself retrieves the content from the Netflix servers, and all your phone does is handle the authentication and key delivery plus playback controls.

You can do screen mirroring with a non-Internet-capable or disconnected TV, but not you can't use the ridiculously designed feature that I'm talking about.

So everything I'm saying is useless is useless for you, too.

You can't have privacy as long as governments depend on taxes for their finances.

agree that NATO will not advance up to the Russian border

It's a bit late for that now: there are already four* NATO members which have a land border with Russia (not counting Poland and Lithuania, which only border Kaliningrad).

*Although I'm not sure that Norway's border is very relevant in practical terms

Do you believe in a right to privacy of action? If I've murdered someone and taken their wallet, is that none of your business?

Money is not speech. Money is action. Money is backed by obligations - public obligations. The only bilateral agreement is a gentleman's agreement. As soon as you need any kind of stronger agreement than that, you need a third party. And that can be a mafia don, or it can be your tribe's patriarch to wage blood feuds over you, or it can be a government.

From public view? That's trivial. Deposit it in a bank, and pay your bills from it there. The public can't go in and see what you've spent money on.

But you probably meant from the government's view, didnt you? That's called money laundering. The reason it's illegal is that if it weren't, the whole system that makes money practical and safe to use in your everyday dealings would come crashing down. Even faster than it already is, I mean. We would be back to blood feuds before you could blink.

There's a word for a person who would submit untainted coins to a tumbler without compensation (i.e, getting back more coins than they put in).

That word is "sucker". Sure, there are many people who will tell you that it's a perfectly normal thing to give your money to a likely money launderer in the hopes of getting back the same amount, just for "privacy". They're hoping you'll do it. They're fishing for suckers.