This just in! Consuming 7 units of alcohol—approximately equivalent to 1 standard 16mL beer or 2.4 units of alcohol—makes unit math hard.

This one actually is solvable. It involves the much demonized regulation by crazy liberal California, but it would only take two pronouncements:

1) Sale of all gas-powered, handheld landscaping equipment and non-riding lawnmowers is phased out by $date. This one is self-explanatory—you'll simply have to go corded or battery as of $date. Joe Farmer's combine would not be in the crosshairs, but yes, new blowers, string trimmers, and hedge clippers would eventually have to go electric.

2) Mandatory interoperability of batteries at each of a discrete number of voltages. Battery lock-in is real; introducing much needed competition in that space will bring prices down and boost adoption of electric across equipment types (example: I'm battery-locked into a brand that doesn't offer pressure washers, but if I could use my batteries with another brand that does offer them, I would def do that instead of borrowing or renting a gas powered one.). If you really want to be consumer- (and construction-, and handyman-) friendly and reduce battery waste, mandate interoperability across power tools at set voltages, as well.

Replying to undo +mod. That's what happens when you're only 1/4 paying attention to /. as you read, you miss the part where COVID is "basically over" (it's not), and European spikes are "just an artefact of testing/false positives" (they're not). Sorry bud, the Enlightenment called and asked not to be flogged in a bad metaphor.

Came here to say this. Their attorneys put into these filings all the worst case doom and gloom they can think of, because they have to.

While TFA's concerns about DD's profitability and regulatory environment may be legit, the mandatory hypothetical pessimism of the "risks" section of an SEC filing is hardly smoking gun proof.

Don't forget alien DNA!

Of course, now that this quackery is being removed from social media, there are indignant rumblings in Trumpland that "doctors are being silenced." Which is rich because they're the ones that have been silencing the doctors.

This! I came here to post... well basically this thread.

^ is extra insightful though; not sure if anyone at Google is keeping an eye on the damage this "built to shutter" ethos does to their reputation and willingness of users to even explore the new stuff they make.

"Failing fast" at almost everything you do isn't a badge of nouveau product development honor, it's a warning sign that I shouldn't build or base anything in my business off of platforms that are likely to stagnate and disappear within a single digit number of quarters.

This. It would be exponentially, multiple-Knuth-arrows more shocking if the head of $anyCompany said any different. Mom and pop vape shops are suing Massachusetts over the temporary vape ban, telecoms and real estate developers and manufacturers sue the government literally every day over some regulation or other, and we're supposed to be scandalized by Mark Zuckerburg saying he'd take legal action to prevent the forcible breakup of the $500B market cap company that he founded?

FTFTFA

The only solution we know of to stop contagious disease that doesn't "rely on herd immunity" is to eradicate the disease (via, yes, vaccination).

Absent that, it doesn't matter if you create a vaccine that is 100% effective in stopping a vaccinated person from getting infected, because there will always be some segment of the population that medically cannot be vaccinated—too young, immunocompromised, body can't handle the components, etc. "The herd" being sufficiently immunized is the only thing standing between those people and the disease.

You fundamentally, and I suspect deliberately, misunderstand the word "forced". The 13th Amendment prevents the bar owner from being purchased by a slave owner, shackled to the bar, and forced to work as chattel property of the slave owner.

No one is going to imprison or kill the bar owner for failing to operate his or her business according to law, unless the law being violated is a criminal statute (e.g. bar owner is committing tax fraud, money laundering, etc.). Even public health and safety violations are generally not imprisonable unless there's a criminal element like gross negligence or willfulness, knowingly serving tainted burgers or whatever.

The assets and operating license(s) of the business may be at risk. If the bar gets fined or successfully sued and it doesn't pay, the business might be shut down. But if Bob Discriminato says "Fuck it, I can't serve one more burger to a $protectedClass person," he's free to quit, discontinue operating his business, and go become a talk radio host. No shackles, no whip, no government gun.

You've been making these kinds of ad absurdum arguments all over the thread. Do you reason like this in real life or are you a dedicated troll?

If you're truly not able to see the difference between:

a) compelled speech, forced mass mood enhancement, and conditioning government benefits on arbitrary and irrelevant criteria,

and

b) limiting the ability of people who willingly choose to be disease vectors to inflict diseases on innocents (infants, elderly, medically unvaccinatable) and on society at large,

then you may want to go ahead and just take up trolling anyway, because at this point it's indistinguishable.

No, we didn't. Or is living to 30 in a violent and brutal world with sky-high infant, maternal, injury, and illness mortality rates your idea of getting by "pretty well"?

The question isn't whether it would be more safe, secure, or resistant to cybercrime. Of course it would.

The real question is how much time and justification governments would need to convince/force people to use The Big Brother Internet and shut off (as best they can), and/or make illegal, access to The Real Internet.

We're not talking China-Taiwan levels of long game here. I give it max 6 years in the more repressive places and 12 everywhere else.

Every trademark is a specific and well defined instance of a particular means of source identification (name, logo, color, sound, trade dress, etc.) coming to be associated, via actual, continuous use in commerce, with the goods or services of the mark holder. None of them are generic, because then they couldn't be trademarks.

This is false. The above referenced mark has mark drawing code 1 for "typed drawing", which is an archaic (pre-2004) but legally identical form of standard character mark. Standard character marks are often displayed by the USPTO in all caps, but "the owner of the mark is not limited to any particular depiction of the mark", including case, font style, size, color, graphical adornments, etc.

Look, it sounds like you're not big on Chooseco's arguments, and I'm not either. But it does neither you nor anyone else any good to spout demonstrably untrue stuff.