I was this many years old when I learned that a generation that started with births in 1946 is responsible for the creation of Social Security in 1935. It would be helpful if you could amplify on the above and let me know which time machine they used? Was it Doc and Marty's, did they hijack the phone booth from Bill and Ted (though I've gotta tell you, that would be more of a Gen-X move rather than Boomers), or did they go the long way using Professor Farnsworth's one-way machine?

I feel bad for the poor IT guy who will inevitably buy one of these TVs for a conference room or something. User tries to show a powerpoint and the device detects the static image as "paused" and starts playing ads instead.

I saw a trailer for that movie, but I don't know what the release date is.

I'm assuming this quote reflects your desire to not talk about Bruno?

That's philosophy, not law. Also ignores the fact that while a journalist could receive that information if it's simply given to him, when he asks for it and provides aid in accessing/exfiltrating it, he becomes an accessory to the crime committed. The first amendment provides that congress may not abridge the freedom of speech or the press, it does not provide immunity from consequence for being part of a conspiracy to break into government systems.

Did he really? I assume you are referring to the "collateral murder" video? If so, what "war crimes" are you asserting are present in that video? Firing on someone who is holding a device that is reasonably mistaken for a shoulder mounted weapon while you're in the middle of a firefight is not a war crime. Firing on a vehicle picking up combatants (even wounded ones) is not a war crime when the vehicle is not marked with a red cross or similar markings identifying it as an ambulance and protected from attack.

"I don't like what the country did" is not a license to break the law.

He does not. However, "instigating Manning to deliver to him secret data" would be "espionage" rather than an "obligation to protect classified information."

The above is a reasonable point--there are certainly more costs to the transaction than a simple approve/deny decision, the load on the network, and the eventual settlement. How much those costs scale with the transaction amount is debatable, but they certainly exist.

On the other hand, your original argument about "all the other things credit cards do" (for the cardholder) remains ridiculous, especially the bit about the amount of credit extended to the customer. The average credit card interest rate right now is 27.89%. Suggesting the merchant has to kick in on the card holder's debt service, which is already at usurious rates, "because it helps them spend money at your store" is crazytown.

Given that the subject is fees paid by the merchant this is a ridiculous argument. Why would the amount of credit that the bank chooses to extend to you be something the merchant should pay for?

Yes, I understand that perfectly, which is why I said what I said. Here, let me repeat myself:

But the conclusion that the carjackers are there with or without firearms is a faulty one. All you "know" (and they didn't even know that) was that something that was stolen was in a given location, but the carjacker could have sold the airpods, given them away, discarded them (because they were aware of location data) and an innocent party picked them up and went home...

Going from "we believe stolen property is at the premises" to "there are firearms, ammunition, and accessories" is not a reasonable conclusion to make.

Twitter is no longer a public company. With that said, it really shouldn't matter. The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).

That's non-sensical. The US Code consists of laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not possess.

Going out on a limb and saying you didn't hear a damned thing, or you're just plain lying. Here is the whole quote:

Sounds a lot less like what it's being portrayed as when it's not take out of context, doesn't it?

With all of the above said, fuck you for making me defend Darth Cheeto.

I agree that plastics are here to stay for many reasons, but the reasons you list above aren't them. We had frozen foods before we had plastic packaging. Fresh foods need not be in plastic (they even have plastic-like vegetable bags made from cellulose these days, but there is nothing wrong with brown paper bags), baked goods don't require plastic (light cardboard with or without a wax coating works fine), and as you point out, rice (and anything similar) can be sold in burlap bags, no plastic required. You can sell liquids in metal cans or glass bottles.

Shelf lives will be shorter (sometimes a lot shorter, sometimes only minimally), the product will probably not be as attractive while sitting on the shelf (no little plastic window means I can't see the donuts in the box I am buying, the horror), transportation costs may increase (glass is heavy), but the reasons "we can't" are all because "we do business a little differently now" and not because some fundamental property of plastic makes it so. If you're over, say, 40, it is not hard to remember a world not dominated by single use plastics.

That's a possibility. Luckily, there are a whole bunch of "blue" counties you can use as a control. How did drug de-criminalization do in e.g. Portland?