You can have ballots without being able to identify who cast them, which is to say, people can vote without being targeted for their votes if the wrong people get access to the ballots.

Vote fraud is, by and large, very close to a complete non-issue in the US. There's a handful of people doing individual-scale vote fraud, probably, and they seem to get caught, and larger-scale things are vanishingly rare, because nearly everyone agrees that this would be bad, and they're on the lookout for it. So, yeah, we have definitely had some known cases, but... Chicago's big illicit voting problems were in the 1960s, and the reason that's still the go-to example is that it's one of the only ones we've had.

Vote suppression is at least as effective and much easier to get away with.

Any of the alternatives like ranked-choice or strict approval would produce better results, in general. And we might yet get there some day; ranked choice voting is actually very popular with people, but not as popular with political parties.

(You can, BTW, safely disregard the surreal conspiracy theories about how much fraud there is, or you can spend a bit of time reading careful writeups of them, but honestly, once you see the list of Minnesota cities presented as evidence of fraud in Michigan, you sort of know what the quality of work you're looking at is going to be.)

Do you have an instance of such an allegation made by an actual identifable person, in front of a judge, asserting that such a thing happened? Because "people submit claims to anonymous online forms" or "people post things on the Internet" are very different sources. Read the actual transcripts; even Trump's lawyers are pretty unwilling to say that they know of any actual fraud. An action like what you describe would be egregiously bad -- and would, one expects, be reported on by the poll watchers (the actual legit trained ones from both parties who are always present during these operations). As opposed to the "observers" who are partisan hacks and regularly report on things like "absentee ballot appears to have been mailed to a person in another city, then counted in this city", which is basically just what "absentee" means.

The complaint you cite with all the "affadavits", the claims were thrown out because the Trump lawyers ran an anonymous online submission form, then removed from it everything that they could prove was definitively false, and submitted all the rest. No verification, no evidence that the people making the reports were even present, let alone observing, no one who was willing to testify to things under oath. Those aren't meaningful evidence, and of course the court threw them out entirely.

Well, if the problem's going to get fixed, either you're going to fix it, or the person who created it and doesn't think it's a problem is going to fix it. One question is what would be fair. Another question is what is likely to actually happen.

Among my friends and family, who have a couple of Switches and play them moderately often:

We've had 10 joycons repaired so far and have at least 4 more that need repairs. Time before repair becomes necessary can be a couple of months to several months, but I don't think we've had any in regular use not require repair.

Complete and perfect solution that makes everyone happy instantly:

Don't automatically crop images.

This gives everyone what they want, which is to post the image they posted instead of a different image.

Their claim that there is "ample time" to develop responses seems inconsistent with the fact that we're already losing immense amounts of life and property to the current amount of climate change.

I'm not sure. Someone on facebook said maybe we don't doubt *enough* things, and I'm too lazy to go read the actual research, so what if I just assume this isn't really a problem?

It's not "refuting" a claim if you didn't actually provide evidence against it.

If I understand correctly, might be several hundred to almost a thousand dollars worth of indirect investments, so, that's pretty definitively not it.

If only we had dozens of previous epidemics to look at to find out what the economic impact of different strategies is!

Oh, wait. We do. Maintaining precautions to slow down the spread of a plague reduces the economic damage compared to just letting it run wild.

Being open at all? Probably necessary. And if everyone wore masks we'd be fine, but they won't, because wearing a mask is now a political signal rather than a practical reality.

I was going to make a joke about how you could just replace "bus master" and "bus slave" with "bus for-profit prison" and "bus vulnerable teen railroaded by a corrupt judge". And then I thought about it a bit more and actually I think there's a pretty solid point that the terminology does have some implications I don't think I like anymore.

The euphemism treadmill can be a thing, but not every complaint about specific use of language is an instance of that thing.

Some people are, in fact, defending what happened to Floyd. Not many.

A lot more are defending police attacks on unarmed, non-violent, non-looting protesters. A lot are defending police attacks on journalists. And yes, we're talking people they know are journalists, with press passes visible, in places where no other violence or anything is happening, and police attacking people.

There are lots of protests which are not riots, and there have been quite a few which were peaceful until badly-trained police showed up and started hitting people.

You say the "media are lying", but the sources you picked are not sources I would think of as being remotely neutral. Maybe try to get some diversity of sources, and don't start with the assumption that the sources you prefer are completely accurate and any source that disagrees with them is lying...

I have lived in both Minneapolis and Saint Paul, and I cannot imagine why you would assume that their claim here was accurate without independent corroboration.

Do you have actual video footage with reliable timestamps or sourcing that proves when it was provided, which shows "looting" happening prior to the use of tear gas? Do you have proof that the "looters" were, in fact, actually trying to get free stuff, and not trying to manufacture an excuse for the police to use force? Because I've seen allegations that one of the people who started the "looting" and "riot" activities is a St. Paul cop, and again, I lived there, and I think that's pretty credible. The SPPD has denied it, but their denial didn't come with solid evidence that he was provably somewhere else at the time, so I don't see any reason to place weight on it.

Consider that the people who live here aren't actually surprised by the initial killing. We're surprised that the cops who did it got fired, because that normally wouldn't happen. Maybe give some thought to the question of whether the people who've lived with these police forces for a while might have formed opinions from direct experience...

Your username is apt. The claim originally advanced was that it was for Serious Cases and resulted in people getting better, not that it was for use as a prophylactic.

That's not true. Go look at the first study that promoted this: No Zinc at all. No mention of Zinc. It was not part of the original predicted model. The French study that got people talking about HCQ+AZ didn't include zinc, so obviously, zinc isn't why HCQ was suggested in the first place.

Studies do seem to suggest that huge doses of HCQ+zinc can affect a virus in test tubes, but studies in actual people don't show the benefit.