placate the plebiscite

If it really does, might that be a good thing? (Or at least no worse than the status quo?) You still get all the benefit of "I voted against $THOSE_ASSHOLES" which is how many FPTP voters vote anyway.

Stop making fun of my life!

I literally did.

You may be too retarded and emotional ("who the fuck are 'they'?", "like a fucking sheep", "biggest non-scientific bullshit I've heard in my life", etc.). If you're dying to prove to the internet that I'm wrong, go for it. Get your data, do your math, and show the internet.

Best of luck.

My initial observation stands. In fact, your asking irrelevant questions and demanding proof for math only strengthens the validity of that observation.

It really is how it works more often than not. Look at the reproducibility crisis for example.

The earth hasn't been around long enough (more specifically the beginning of single celled life on earth -- something like 3.4 billion years ago) for evolution to actually work the way they say it does (or has been observed in DNA differences like between humans and chimps -- and that's only a 2% difference). Some biologists/evolutionists recognize this problem, but like Science always does, they're being laughed at. Which is fine, cause they're just making it up too.

Come on. Anyone with a basic understanding of the topic would know that I'm referring to the rate of fixation.

Evolution is fake and literally impossible. It can't hold up to basic math (fixed mutation rate vs time). Your using its banning as the bar for "something fucking majorly gone wrong in the schooling system" just demonstrates how inverted and screwed up the western school system really is.

Repeal DMCA. 1201 is what effectively mandated product-tying between content and its player.

OK... low user id. NOW it's 2003. :D

And yeah, /. staff is really into the baity headlines. Calling it "globally recognized" is false.

"Keeping Tiktok on phones" sounds like someone spending money to induce phonemakers to have the Tiktok client preloaded on new phones. That would, indeed, be hideous and worthy of exposure and scathing criticism.

But instead, it's just about opposing a ban?! That's pretty damn different from "keeping" it.

he said should not be viewed as "a political topic — it's a topic for humanity."

It's not political, so you're presenting the hoax to a legislative body so that they can enact new policies to account for aliens. Got it, not political at all, except for 100% of it.

They're still doing serial instead of parallel so it's only about a tenth the speed it could be, and even then, it still doesn't work with my 1541 drives. Fail!

the Constitution doesn't really empower the federal government to legislate individual behavior

A1S8: "The Congress shall have Power .. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes."

Since 1943, this power has been interpreted by every SCOTUS makeup (this isn't a "liberal" vs "conservative" thing) to include any imaginable human activity, unless they're explicitly blacklisted from legislating that topic (e.g. establishing religion or infringing the right to bear arms).

If a human can do x, then doing x almost certainly affects commerce. Did you just pick you nose with your finger? Then you just reduced the size of the market for automatic nose-picker machines, some of which might be manufactured in other states. If Congress wants to outlaw picking your nose with your finger, they have a constitutional basis for that.

If you disagree (and maybe you should!) then you have to accept that you are disagreeing with a consistent, unified SCOTUS, and not just today, but in your parents' and grandparents' time too. And that means you are guaranteed to lose any legal dispute (though not necessarily every philosophical dispute) over the matter, whether your (rather common sense, IMHO) analysis is faithful to the original intent or not.

I don't think this can be changed, except by a new constitutional amendment which re-asserts the 10th amendment by explicitly contradicting the current (1943-2023) [mis?]interpretation. Until then (i.e. forever), we're going to have lots of laws concerning individual behavior, and there will always be calls to have someone enforce those laws.

The paranoid / hyper-secure types that live in fear

That's a funny market to try to compete in, for hardware which is dependent on a proprietary cloud-based service. What's the very first thing which comes to mind when you hear "Ring?" That someone-who-isn't-the-owner is the entity ultimately in charge of who is allowed to access it.

I guess the way to spin it is: if you buy a Ring, then you don't have to worry about the government constantly interrupting you with requests to see footage. Someone else will handle all those tedious requests for you, without ever bothering you with such distractions.

Ring is for people who have no paranoia at all. The more paranoid you are, the worse Ring sounds.

I have to turn it down because it's too loud. I have to turn on subtitles because it's too quiet.