Resolving ambiguities in the law is what judges are for. The existing system is all about writing vague laws and then appointing "agency experts" to fill in the blanks without having to bother with that whole annoying democracy thing to change the law. Some people like it that way though, the submitter seems pretty upset at the idea of lawmaking involving things like voting or separation of powers.

"Neon Genesis Evangelion? Wouldn't you rather watch some Canadian anime instead?"

As soon as I saw the headline I thought, "living tissue over a metal endoskeleton, what could possibly go wrong..."

Obama's falsehoods also spurred a lot if skepticism on politics.

When conservatives riot, it's an "attack", "coup", "insurrection", "threat to our democracy" and so forth, but when liberals riot, like the BLM riots that went on for months, causing vastly more deaths and property damage than January 6, it's a "peaceful protest".

If he wants to go with a car analogy, an iPhone is like a car where opening the hood requires a key that's only available to the dealership mechanics. It keeps clueless users from messing around in there, and protects the manufacturer's income stream. Android, on the other hand, is like a car that lets end users and third party mechanics open the hood and install potentially non-OEM parts in there.

Which of the three will be making the GE minigun?

Tasty, tasty pork rinds!

The rejecting of climate change is pretty easy to account for. A lot of people use climate change to push whatever their personal agenda is:

The climate is changing so we need to...

• Massively raise taxes
• Adopt a socialist economy
• Become vegetarians
• Abandon privately owned vehicles
• Switch to more expensive energy sources

Instead of debating all the kooky non-sequitur solutions are being proposed in the name of climate change, it's easier to just throw the ball back in their court by questioning whether the climate is even changing at all. If debating an actual climate scientist, this might not work very well, but when confronted by people who know little about science and are just using it to lend urgency to their pet cause, this is effective at shutting down their rant about how we must do such-and-such in the name of global warming.

People do this sort of thing in other areas as well. For instance, when faced with someone proselytizing religion, an agnostic might not want to get into some long discussion about what concepts of the divine they are and are not open to considering, and instead just say they don't believe in God at all, even if their private views on spirituality happen to be more nuanced.

Sometimes people take a hard line position just to shut up people they don't want to deal with.

Having no headphone jack (which I use every day) makes this a downgrade not just from my existing phone, but from the first-gen iPhone I had over a decade ago. Sure, you could use a dongle, but why?

The lack of a Bixby button is lame too. Bixby itself is useless, but having a remappable physical button is very handy. I use the one on my Note 8 to turn the flashlight on and off, much quicker and more convenient than doing it through the GUI.

The near eastern warrior women were Amazons a couple millennia before some web site was founded or rivers in the New World started getting European names.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. I challenge anyone to find a tweet where I have ever claimed otherwise.

Interesting how this gets posted on Sunday morning, a time when people of faith are particularly likely to be offline doing other things. Deliberate attempt to skew the discussion, or just failure to think things through?

It's one thing to need 3+ people in a car to use the HOV lane, but how does this promote carpooling if you make ALL the roads in town illegal with 1-2 people in the car? The first guy can't go pick the other up, and at the end of the day if you're down to two passengers, you can't drop either of them off.