SCOTUS ruled that

I didn't ask for SCOTUS' opinion.

I took a look at a couple of your links and they don't meet the requirements I laid out. I thought you would fail, and you did.

Read a few of the letters and such written by those that founded the USA, they'd disagree that there's no connection between, as an example, the freedom to speak one's mind and carry arms in public.

Then post a link to one of the letters that says (1) gun ownership should be an individual right rather than a collective right, and (2) that whether it's an individual or collective right should not be left to the states to decide.

I adjusted my TV to make everything a little brighter, knowing it might blow out some of the highlights but that's fine. I think directors new to HDR just don't know how to use it, they're exposing for the highlights and ignoring the shadows.

and the boys were already ten and eleven years old when I entered their life

I hope you got a good relationship with them! My son can't even talk yet. So, right now, he's just this cute thing that runs around and causes trou^H^H^H^Hgood things to happen.

 

Well, some of that is for classes for people who can't see that default 3-pixel wide scrollbar on Windows 11 in high contrast dark mode. :-)

Fair. Just making fun of Windows 11.

Yeah, you're blessed to have one of each. Until they start conspiring against you, which you KNOW is going to happen.
ha!

Hopefully we'll raise them better than that. And let them see us honoring our parents.

You charge to "upgrade" to Windows 11? How evil are you? :P

For all my pro-life ramblings, we were granted only one child.

Precious. I feel bad you couldn't have more though. G-d has been very generous to us.

Keeping up with two toddlers after age 50 can't be easy.

And yet i wouldn't trade it for anything! Thank G-d, we have a lot of help. Especially, when some neighboring girls come by to take our son for a walk. G-d bless them all.

If every person using an AI assistant becomes a mechanical turk for sending data back upstream to the AI provider as a means to bypass robots.txt that's what isn't cool. Local usage for the benefit of that user should be ok, but not the follow on effects.

Who is the supreme arbiter of what is fact and not?

Moderators, who value civility over truth. Who tolerate trolls and punish those who call them trolls because name calling is "uncivil." Who, as MLK said, are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice."

They try to claim they aren't the arbiters of what is fact and what is not but their moderation powers prove otherwise. They try to claim neutrality, but that's a delusion:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject." --John Stuart Mill, 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews

If the exemption limit is 15k, you can increase your total income by up to 15k by getting a job, any job. You can further reduce or eliminate the perverse incentive by (I'm updating my suggestion here) not clawing benefits back dollar for dollar past the exemption limit, but perhaps at a rate of .50 per dollar,

Then you would be working for half pay. That brings us back to where "entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income".

We should distinguish our definition of welfare trap then. I took it to mean the strictly economic aspect, whereby getting a job that pays as much a or slightly more than one receives on welfare would actually result in a net loss to the person as a result of added costs associated with working.

Using the Wiki's definition, it's not where getting a job results in a net loss but where "entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income...and this can create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job."

How exactly would UBI solve the welfare trap? By the standards you're holding me to, if anyone decides not to work in-spite of getting UBI they're still in the trap.

Except that a UBI doesn't "create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job." No perverse incentive=no trap.

Only after you hit that limit (per year) does the assistance get clawed back...some folks will thread the needle so they can work as little as possible in order to keep their welfare at maximum

Thus keeping them in the welfare trap. So it really doesn't solve anything. Thanks anyway for trying!

How would you solve the Welfare Trap without a UBI?

Controlling what some people can and can't do isn't freedom.

Freedom is a paradox in that you must create and enforce laws--taking freedom from those who would use it to take it from others--in order to maximize freedom for all.