https://theonion.com/area-man-...

s/constitution/democracy in your case

it's a representative government. the number of decisions you don't and shouldn't need to weigh in on would boggle your puny mind

any view of the world that supposes humans are rational actors is busticated

it's not even a question, there are only a zillion different ways you can prove that people make choices all the time that are opposed to their own interests

you'll spend more money trying to define those questions than you'll save from rooting out "scammers"

it's the tragedy of modern American politics, where more money is spent on fixing waste (or programs unenacted) just because there's some inherent waste

A large portion of the American electorate would rather set their own lawn on fire than see somebody who doesn't deserve money get some, it's pretty funny

because they do something important that nobody thinks you need or wants to pay for.

see: your comment

Ah yes, the old "if everyone wasn't an idiot, because I'm not an idiot, we'd be living in a utopia, and since I have confidently declared this not to be a problem for myself, the problem does not actually exist" rebuttal. I think that accounts for 80% of the posts here these days.

Ah yes, it's the "I gave it thought for 2 seconds, and now I have a better solution than the people who've been thinking about it for decades even though it's not my job, area of expertise, I don't understand the problem anyway, and I am free of a litany of other considerations that apply" guy. Good work.

I love that you couldn't explain that without saying that they represent a financial opportunity rather than just, you know, solve a problem better than existing solutions.

They could also fire you for living out of a car. Fun choices!

TechCrunch found that the app's backend services didn't properly restrict access, allowing any logged-in user to request and receive data belong to other users.

I *loooove* how common this flaw is. I remember decades back getting hired by a guy to keep working on some event marketing website he'd had another programmer build. Took me like 10 minutes at that job to figure out you could do the exact same thing.

Another Canadian dunce who's drank the warm cup of PP ...

That has not been my experience, at all. I'm entirely against the concept of what they're doing (giving me a reason not to visit the websites that ultimately pay for the production and publication of information) but the AI summaries and links to related articles tend to be spot on what I'm looking for. Perhaps you can give me a (non-contrived) search to try that demonstrates your claim?

Texas and Florida prohibit local governments from mandating rest and water breaks.

The issue with health concerns like this is that it's not like it explodes and kills you - there's really no way to say, "It was the molecule on March 13, 2026 that started cancer in your body"

You can't even do that with cigarettes - you can only make a conclusion on cause that's well supported by circumstantial evidence.

And I'm not saying you're arguing against it, but just broadly speaking ... arguing *against* more information - unless the argument is that the information itself is inaccurate - seems particularly anti free-market to me. (Obviously that's why companies fight against the burden of regulation designed to increase market transparencies.)

The irony of your sarcasm is it actually *is* horrible.

Water is good - necessary even - but too much water will kill you. Choice is the exact same way - it's entirely possible to have too much of it, as much as that contradicts an ethos buried deeply in the American id.