Except not all of what you're saying is true, and the false stuff is the bedrock of your argument. Specifically, Amazon does not and did not have a policy restricting cell phones. Since employees thought that they did and many of those carried them anyway. Furthermore, according to the workers, managers told them to take shelter immediately upon receiving the warning. That's the workers talking, not an Amazon spokesperson. At the time the tornado hit, everyone was already sheltering, so they had adequate warning from management. The big problem is that Amazon didn't have purpose-built tornado shelters for them to shelter in. While they aren't required to by code and this isn't unusual, they probably should have. That's the most you can fault them for, given what's currently publicly known.

I'm not saying Amazon is great, or even not evil, but they did the right thing here, given the circumstances. Trying to say otherwise because the owner is super rich is just nonsense.

Well, except for the two biggest wars ever. You could argue that the USA didn't have all that much to do with the victory in World War I, but World War II was definitively an American victory. Since then it hasn't been all victories, but it hasn't been all losses either. The US won in Iraq, even if the rebuilding effort that came after was lackluster, for instance. Korea was a draw, not a loss, as well. Get your history right next time. You can make the argument that the USA isn't all-powerful without completely being full of shit.

Furthermore, any argument that these victories don't count because the US didn't start them or because they had allies is bullshit with catpiss on top. However the US got into those conflicts and whoever they fight along side, it was the US that unequivocally won them.

No need to be so gross as pissing on it. Humans have scent glands (essentially) in their armpits and groin that can be used. I suspect your dog will be much more familiar with scents from those places than the scent of your piss. Just rub it on your armpits every morning and that'll be good enough.

How is, "It was fine. It's not now." a bad look for anyone. Do policies have to start out perfect and always stay the same? That doesn't make any sense. If it was fine, then it was fine. If it's not now, then it's not now. But you don't have to get in a time machine to go back and redo everything in accordance with your new policy every time you want to update how things are done. That's what people are saying Clinton should have done. Also, she wasn't a Senator at the time we're talking about. She was Secretary of State, which is basically third-in-command of the executive branch.

No, you're definitely the idiot. If I remember correctly (and I do), Clinton was following the standard procedure of the day. Later, after that procedure was changed, people made a federal case out of her not following the new policy back in the day before the new policy was even written. Apparently, she was supposed to be a psychic or some shit, and she wasn't, and idiots glommed onto it like it was something super nefarious. It wasn't. People just hadn't figured out technology yet.

Oh, except there were those two emails that did have secret info in them on her non-secret server, right? Well, no. At the time that info wasn't yet classified, and she didn't send it anyway. Someone sent it to her. She should have deleted it and told them to knock it off when the info was classified, but no one noticed. Why would you? Those messages were old. They were fine when written. Do you spend time going through old messages to scour for shit that was sent to you that probably shouldn't have been long after it's no longer relevant. And remember, she did tell them not to talk about that kind of stuff over those channels at the time, and they stopped. And also remember, that stuff wasn't classified at the time it was sent, so it wasn't yet illegal to have it unsecured. It only became classified later, long after anyone thought anything about those two particular messages. Think about it: would you remember about the two messages that someone sent you two months ago about topic X when you found out that the topic X became classified two months later? I know I wouldn't remember ANY email I was sent two months earlier, at all, and Clinton gets way more email than I do. It's basically a non-issue. No one, not even a low-level grunt, would have gotten more than a lecture if they'd done the same. Not then and not now. Why should Clinton be any different?

You should take your own advice. When it becomes clear that a thing we are doing is causing harm, and there's a way to mitigate that harm without causing significant problems, we are obligated to it. You do not and should not have the liberty to shirk your responsibilities. Getting rid of small gasoline engines is a fantastic idea. It mitigates a significant harm. We should do it. Does this really cause infringement of your liberties? No. You can still mow your lawn. You'll just have to buy an electric mower when your current one dies. So fucking what? I don't want to hear any crap about your rights, either. You don't have the unlimited right to harm others, even as indirectly as running a two-stroke lawnmower or weedwhacker.

If you haven't already done so, go get your COVID vaccine while you're at it. As with the lawnmower case, you don't have the unlimited freedom to expose everyone else to deadly viruses because you don't like shots or trust science. Don't give me any pseudoscientific garbage about vaccines being possibly worse than the illness or whatever other bullshit you think of. I don't care. Grow up, be an adult, and do the right thing. Get vaccinated. Get your kids vaccinated. Do it now. If not for society, which is more than enough reason, then for yourself. Without the vaccine, you have a ~2% chance of dying from COVID, assuming you're otherwise healthy, and a 100% chance of getting sick. If you have any underlying health issue, or if you smoke, that 2% becomes 5%-20%, depending on this health issue. COPD patients, for example, have a 20%+ chance of death if they catch COVID unvaccinated. That's Russian roulette territory. And without the vaccine, you absolutely will catch COVID. So have fun with that. Remember, that 2% is per person. A family of five, all unvaccinated and otherwise healthy, has a 10% of at least one of them dying. A family of five smokers has a 1 in 4 chance of at least one of them dying.

The thing about tiny antennae is that they can be just as good as really big antennae. What you do is embed the antenna in a very particular kind of plastic resin. This plastic has the property that light which travels through it is significantly showed down. This makes the wavelength of any given ray of light that travels through it reduced accordingly, without changing the frequency. The wavelength of microwaves (which is what WiFi uses) in air is roughly 10cm, but it is possible, with the right plastic, to get that down to 1mm or even less. Antennae work best when they're a (negative) integer power of two of the wavelength of the frequency of light you're trying to receive. The lower the magnitude of that integer the better. With this technique, it is entirely possible to use an antenna which is the wavelength itself, which would be the best antenna possible. The only fly in the ointment is that the bigger the shrinkage, the more of the light that will be reflected off the air-plastic interface, but this can be minimized by making changes to the shape, a.k.a. making the plastic into a carefully chosen lens. This is why cellphones no longer have giant antennae sticking out of the tops anymore. Using lenses and reflectors made with this carefully chosen plastic should make it possible to embed any type and awesomeness of antenna that you want into as small a space as you want.

The article did have "examples" in the form of a quoted tweet bitching about the style with an image of made-up examples of the style strewn about a light green canvas. I almost missed it too.

I have to point out that you're slightly wrong about Section 230 of the CDA. That's the law that gives YouTube (and everyone else) immunity from suit for third-party content. You said that they can't curate the content and still have the protection. This is false. What they can't do is have editorial control over the creation of the work. This is quite different than curation. Editorial control means that they direct the creators to make specific edits or include specific content. Since they're not doing this, they are not editors, and they receive the immunity. They are allowed to pick and choose which content they show and set rules for eligibility, both before and after the content goes live, for whatever reasons they want, as long as they have a reason (that last bit is disputed, the courts have yet to decide whether a reason is actually required and whether you have to tell anyone what it is. The law itself isn't super clear on that point, but seems to imply that you need a reason, but that you don't need to say what it is, and that it doesn't need to be a good or even sensical.) Now you know.

  It should also be noted that the law makes no distinction between publishers and platforms, or even between publishers and creators. It distinguishes between first-party and third-party content. What makes content first-party is editorial control. Editorial control means having the power to make specific edits to the content. You naturally have editorial control on content you make yourself. When you hire someone else to make something, it becomes yours if you can decide what's in it and what's not specifically. Selecting the general topic or setting general rules doesn't make it yours. Dictation of specific scenes or dialog, making cuts or additions does make it yours, at least according to this law.

Wrong. There's nothing in the constitution about government but competing with private enterprise. Where did you get that dumb idea from? If you wish to continue to claim otherwise, please start with the article/amendment, paragraph, and clause of the place in the constitution that prohibits such conduct. Without that, any argument is devoid of meaning and will be ignored.

False. Arbitration is almost always super cheap for the consumer, typically fully paid for by the company who requires it. Arbitration hearings are almost always done by telephone, so no traveling. And there aren't arcane rules, so no lawyers necessary. They're also a third party lawyer, so they're generally fair and unbiased. In fact, companies that require arbitration lose all the time. The reason they require it is because it prevents class actions, which can cost huge amounts of money, although this can backfire if enough people choose to arbitrate, thereby costing them ludicrous amounts of money anyway, and because they don't need to hire lawyers either. They can just hire anyone they want to handle it. Often they hire lawyers anyway, but they hire them full time, which is way cheaper than being a lawyer's client for every individual case, particularly when, with lawsuits, they'll have to hire different lawyers for each jurisdiction they're sued in, even if they have in-house counsel handling most of it. Lawyers can only practice in jurisdictions they've passed the bar in, so you'll, at a minimum, need a different lawyer for each state you're sued in. With arbitration, you can just use your in-house counsel to handle it all, if you use attorneys to begin with. That's why companies like arbitration.

If your USB type-C cables are falling out, then you have lint/shit in the port. If you clean them out, the connectors will stay in just fine; there's a detent that holds everything in place. Unfortunately, if your port gets even a little bit of lint in it, the detent can't catch and the cable will just fall out. To fix that, remove all the lint. I use a straightened 3/4" Swingline Heavy-Duty staple. It's the perfect gauge to do the job. It fits pretty much exactly between the outside of the port and the inner stalk, and 3/4" is long enough to dig all the way to the bottom. It won't damage the port because you're not scraping the electrical connectors which are on the sides of the port but the very bottom of the port instead.

Except none of that is true, now, is it? Lumber prices are down since January. Gas prices are roughly the same. Prices haven't changed significantly since Biden took office at all. And nobody uses electronic price displays in any store anywhere. Stop making shit up. Pull your head out of your ass. It's so far up there, you'll digest your own brain if you're not careful.

It only doesn't make sense to you because you're too dense to understand why Net Neutrality has nothing to do with social media. Net Neutrality says that ISPs must treat all traffic equally. Remember that this traffic is stuff that you requested from websites you want to see, and you're paying to have that traffic delivered to you. Net Neutrality requires that ISPs deliver the service you paid for, without requiring other people to also pay up for something you already bought and paid for. That has nothing whatsoever to do with social media sites. They're not services you already paid for. They're essentially bulletin boards at the local grocery store. If want the privilege of posting, you have to follow the rules. The government can't come in and say, "all bulletin boards in grocery stores must display all the posts that random lunatics want to post as long they're also running for dogcatcher." That's nonsense.

Okay, Ivan. Sure. Try to cover up the Russian attack. We believe you. You're totally not a Russian troll.