Nice clear answer, thanks.

But just because the cops could get a warrant doesn't mean the suspect really has their evidence.

They can "compel" Professor Plum to produce the candlestick, but if he can't, he can't. And if he can, he's probably sealed his own fate.

So I'm with GP - I don't see how compelling one to provide evidence against herself is anything but compelling self-incriminating testimony. If the cops can't crack the password, their evidence that she had the password should be all they can produce at trial.

"Social justice is bullshit"

By that do you mean that it is both undesirable and impossible?

The impossible I can't speak to, but justice seems desirable no matter what adjective you stick in front of it.

I think a just society would not produce homogeneity of outcome, but it would produce a distribution of outcome where most of the wealth is shared by most of the people.

In other words, wealth distribution should look something vaguely similar to a normal (bell) distribution. America's, though, looks like an exponential function (hockey stick).

We love to gush patriotism and congratulate ourselves on being the land of freedom and a meritocracy where anyone can make it. That's been true for a few individuals, but collectively, the cold empirical facts tell a different story. A story of wealth being siphoned from the masses to the few. A story of social injustice.

Social injustice is bullshit.

"The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit."

Going forward, they should weigh the payloads before accepting so many clients.

With such bandwidth they should be able to beam themselves straight from their transporter room to your MMORPG..

" Steve never made it to president, so that should tell you he's not quite as clever as he thinks"

Because Republican primary voters nominate only the brightest intellectuals.

" I don't know if they actually did or not. Or if you're just making shit up"

Having deduced that you lack the character to do a google search, I provided a link to get you started.

That you lack the will to copy and paste that URL into a browser window goes a long way towards explaining how you've managed to insulate your mind from the reality that we are throwing sand in the gears of our own life support systems.

The idea that the increase in temperature is "slight" comes from where? IPCC predictions that every climatologist calls "very conservative?"

"Poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing" are all amplified by the changing climate. Climate change is a 3rd world problem before it's a 1st world problem. Otherwise, the 1st world would already be stopping their pumping carbon by the tons from the bowels of the earth into the atmosphere, as the 3rd world is pleading for them to do.

The man who currently holds Sir Isaac Newton's old job, one Stephen Hawking, appears to be convinced that by the year 3000 Earth will have the climate of Venus. Carl Sagan predicted runaway warming as well. (https://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/)

If you know better than they, please show your work.

Sorry, that was $1.00 * 10 for me. I didn't mean to underreport that dime on tax day.

"If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted. "

It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid. If the goal were to give me a 99 cent advantage, It would be cheaper to give me ($0.99 * 10) than to shell out that for me plus ($0.01 * 10,000) for you.

If value means only purchase price, why would the industry with overwhelming market domination and the lowest retail price require taxpayer subsidies?

"Food supply and production chains are not fine-grained enough to support this kind of labelling"

Why would they be, if they don't have to be? Especially if it gives them convenient cover, enthusiastically deployed on their behalf by Anonymous Cowards?

"Conventional corn and soy production is 70% GMO already"

If you know this, why couldn't the supply chain?

That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.

What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers. Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?

As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with "per megawatt," and everything to do with "per campaign contribution."

It's the job of a physician to understand what systems do, how they work, and how to work around their problems. Defeating problematic obstacles should come to them naturally.

Why would you trust your health to doctors who willingly sacrificed their own productivity in order to allow inept and gullible bureaucrats to sit on their asses, or have orgies with security vendors who are robbing the hospital blind?