This isn't a binary situation where a deterrent is either 100% effective or its useless. A regulation assuming that someone doesn't want to intentional put themselves in danger is generally pretty effective. With a drone that aspect is gone though so its a reasonable stance to subject drone operators to some rules that an in-person pilot may not have to adhere to.

It was thrown away "in 2013". Now, Bitcoin saw a dramatic rise in value that year - on the last day of the year it was worth $754.01, but even if we're being charitable and assume January 3 of that year (the lowest value it was), it was still worth $13.28.

The total is 8000 bitcoins, which means that even when thrown away the coins were worth at least $106,240. Nowhere near the millions it is now, but still not something that you'd want to just casually toss.

Which is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

People have gotten used to the idea of retiring from working as they get to a certain age. However, that concept only works if you have a larger population of working adults (younger people) able to supply the material needs of themselves plus those out of the work force (retirees and those incapable of working - eg, the disabled). This relies on the population always growing, but that also causes problems with crowding and overconsumption of natural resources. Automation can help the younger working class support more and more older people but eventually it does get to a breaking point.

Basically, either you accept an always growing population or you accept that you have to work much longer before retirement (eg have policy set the retirement age dynamically such that its always whatever, say, 70% of the population falls below). Or we have a wavy mess where the population grows large, there's calamity to "reset" it back to lower numbers, and then we go back to growing again until the next reset.

Yep. For Christianity its in Luke 14:2-5 :

And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

Basically a way of saying "Don't be stupid about the no work on the sabbath thing - if something is an emergency take care of it.".

Its not been proven false - its basically a mathematical certainty that it will happen with an infinite amount of time (not only would the infinite monkeys eventually duplicate every book we've ever written - they'd do a billions upon billions of times).

The only caveat is that it would take significantly longer than the universe has existed, or likely will exist in the future. That's the deal with infinity though - its a mostly mathematical concept that rarely has any real world relevance.

Indeed getting out of the house is good, but if I'm getting out of the house there's a lot of stuff I'd rather do that go to a movie. We have movies at home, and unlike the meme its actually better. If I'm getting out of the house I'd rather do something I can't do at home. Fishing, amusement parks, beaches, shooting range, etc.

That and I'm over theaters in general. Watching at home is a preferable experience for me, so whatever it is I'll just wait on it to be available at home.

Like most unlimited plans, it probably was wanting to rely on people underutilizing the service. EG, the price that you pay for "unlimited" is less than the value of the service that you're using. Sure some people may hyper-utilize the "unlimited" service but your math has to work out to accommodate those people's usage too.

The problem they ran into is that their initial price was just way too low. At $10 per month they're basically just breaking even if the person even watches 1 movie per month. If they were charging $150 to $200 per month for unlimited movies then it might have been enough to cover ticket costs (though I'm not sure they'd sell many plans at that amount), but at $10 per month it was doomed to failure.

Not everyone CAN use stairs. There are plenty of people in wheelchairs or old enough that just walking is barely possible.

Yeah - there are plenty of Intel CPU's pre-8th gen that are still PLENTY fast enough for current use but Microsoft won't let you upgrade without jumping through hoops.

If they drop the TPM requirement, I'm sure plenty of people would upgrade.

I mean I'm still old but well under 60 (43) and I remember watching Popeye a lot as a kid. And that spinach marketing stuff hella worked on me as I always wanted spinach when we went grocery shopping (the Popeye's brand specifically).

Sounds like that's what he did. The thing is, for an organization, if enough top competitors in a given game decide to not "fucking play" based on your arbitrary requirements, then the validity and prestige of your little event tends to become questionable.

That's your choice, and I'm happy to stop subsidizing your poor shopping practices as we all pay higher prices from that type of behavior.

Do your research on stuff before you decide to purchase it. Read or watch reviews. Then decide whether or not you want this product - BEFORE YOU BUY IT. Return it if it doesn't work right or something is wrong (eg, if you ordered a red item but a blue one arrived), but if you just decide you don't like it, then you made a poorly researched purchase and that's on you.

I said in my response that returning clothing that doesn't fit is an acceptable return.

Honestly sometimes reading reviews I totally get why they'd make it more difficult. If I buy something and it arrives damaged or not working, then obviously that's a return. Clothing if it doesn't fit, sure.

That said, I've read some forum posts or reviews for something in binoculars where the person is sayings things like "I bought 3 pairs and tried them out and then sent back the 2 I didn't like.". Or "I didn't like this one feature about an item - sending it back."

The return policy shouldn't be a way to test drive products that you may or may not keep. It should be reserved for when something is obviously faulty, misrepresented, etc. If I don't do my research and end up buying something I don't like but its functioning exactly the way its intended to, then that's on me.