The trick is to not live in California. Let them do somethings, and then the other 49 of us can look at how those somethings went.

And it's still a great place to visit, too!

I can think of at least one legitimate case for someone publishing n books per day, for some pretty large values of n.

Imagine someone has written many books over many years, but they didn't try selling through Amazon (which I must admit, is something I wouldn't predict). Then one day, they decide to start selling their books on Amazon. So on the first day, here's suddenly 20 years worth of books that they're introducing to Amazon's system.

There may be things on the road you may not want to hit,

Such as pedestrians?

Oh come on, how much more transparent can this weaponization of government be?! You can't just block the Republican Party from the internet. That's blatantly unconstitutional.

But I thought that 'gender affirming' care was also sterilising

I assume you quickly spotted the obvious error right after posting that. (Why does Slashdot still not allow edits?!) If you let a bunch of boys and girls do what they want, instead of making them do whatever the far left wing State wants, a lot of the boys and girls will fuck each other. After all, cis/straight/whateveryoucallit is still a pretty majority preference.

Not that I don't understand the left's (Republicans') position. The Chinese Communist Party's efforts to micromanage the birth rate are inspiring, and I see why the left favors government centralization over individual liberty. Maybe gender-affirming care gets boys and girls fucking too much, resulting in agricultural demands which exceed that which was budgeted in the Five Year Plan. It is only through austerity that we will make progress!

On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians (Democrats) want to leave it to the market, allowing people to live the lives they want free of tyranny. But who knows if free people will make the choices which support leadership's decisions?

So I can see why Republicans are skeptical. If you affirm peoples' individual choices, the next thing you know, they'll want their own guns and printing presses. Maybe we should expand government's responsibilities to prevent people from following their natural urges if those urges don't comply with State directives.

Why affirm a person's choice, when that choice should be made by a carefully-educated government official? If the plan can't accommodate boys who want to fuck girls, the state should force them to do whatever is needed. Wouldn't you be gay if the government explained they needed you to? Think state-affirming care, not gender-affirming care!

I think the Amazon ban significantly boosted their sales. They could not have bought a better advertising campaign.

The Fed's hands need to be slapped and slapped hard.

Great, but slapping someone else (e.g. Google) for what someone else (ISIS dudes) said, does not help slap the feds at all.

Watch your aim. Slap the feds, not unrelated parties. Make NSLs illegal so that when the feds try to change what a website says (or silence it), not only do they lack the power to compel webmasters, but their attempt can be lawfully exposed.

These companies having this power then open up foreign countries to get in and push agendas...that often are not in our (US) best interest.

Yes, and your website should be able to push whatever agenda you want, too, regardless of whether or not it's what the US Government du jour happens to want. Even Americans can't agree with one another about what our best interests are. See this discussion right here, my fellow American.

Indeed, given how many foreign websites we use, that's a neat check on our government. And every other government. We basically need all the governments of the world to unite behind a single agenda in The Ultimate Grand Conspiracy, in order for things to go badly. We are finally beating them (except for the risk of having to spend money on lawyers, like what happened to Google in this case).

Look at Twitter. It went to shit, so people left. Problem solved. And Facebook is only for old people (though I'm not sure how it compares to Slashdot). Some day, TikTok will be the next MySpace. None of them matter, except for the value they give us in contradicting all the other ones.

The last 20 years have made censorship much harder than it ever was before. We're at maximum freedom compared to any other moment in history. I think that's great.

You must set your community to 18+ if your community's content will primarily be not safe for work (NSFW),

But people who are 18+ (though under 70) are at the highest risk of having a workplace where the data is unsafe. Conversely, people under 18 are less likely to have a job (though people 70+ enjoy similar status), so there's no workplace in which the data will pose a safety concern. Your policy is backwards!

I think we can all agree that this is very disrespectful to people who are just trying to do their jobs and get through their shitty day, and in an ideal world, people should be able to communicate freely without childish sabotage, and that despite all this, what happened is absolutely hilarious and we all hope it happens many more times.

I know a lot of you people are friends with Kevin Bacon, so the next time you're talking to him or one of his friends, let him know we're counting on his good behavior.

My prediction: Five years from now there will be a massive glut in semiconductors.

When you get down to it, that's the goal. The government doesn't have the national security policy that it wants, until it can shop in a glutted domestic market.

The missile could blow up on the launchpad, explains Wellerstein. No one wants to clean that mess up.

So do it in a place where they only have poor people, so you don't have to clean it up. Geez, do I have to think of everything for you?

If I go to a news site today, more than 50% of my screenspace are ads

What's your problem with uBlock Origin?

I think that anyone who still sees ads, wants to see ads. Otherwise, why would they keep loading them?