Our voting system does not know the difference. It explicitly states: silence == consent. Yes, for a human, there is a difference. For a ballot, there is none.

It does not only seem so, it's right there in the description.

Me and my loved ones are not swapping crypto tokens so there seems to be a fatal flaw in your logic.

Commit .env to git repos you mean? I do it all the time - but if it makes you feel better it's only for private repos that I don't share with anyone and I always feel vaguely guilty about it.

I could use a free OpenAI api key.

Nobody will care if Trump pardons that guy. Him being in prison doesn't improve my life even remotely. It doesn't even give me a warm feeling because his victims were all crypto bros.

With not voting, you are forfeiting your right to influence the outcome. Therefore, whatever the outcome, you blindly have agreed to it. You can try to be rabulistic about it, but there is no difference in the outcome if you are not voting because you were lazy, indifferent or enthusiastic about it. All three non-votes count exactly the same: zero.

How do you prove a negative? If you have no Instagram account, how do you prove it? By not knowing your Instagram password?

How does it work then with people posting stuff in the name of organizations?

That's the "foreign agent" argument of every dictatorial regime right now.

In my book, everyone absent from voting is voting for whatever the outcome.

For Aldi, which uses Instacart, I assumed it was because there is no 'fee' for pickup, but they have to pay someone to shop for you. I consider the difference a convenience fee.

That said, by not shopping in store, I end up getting only what is on my list and end up paying FAR LESS than I would if I was wandering around.

Why not blame it on his ancestors? It seems like we're dumping a lot of hate on just some random guy...

Let's not lose perspective here - we're talking about entertainment companies. These aren't airlines, ISPs, or grocery stores, it's boob tube fodder.

If you can't afford it, you don't have to subscribe. When I was a kid, we didn't have premium cable TV channels because my folks thought it wasn't worth the money. We still went to the movies occasionally and rented tapes from the local rental joint (before they all became Blockbuster Video).

There's absolutely no reason that the government should be involving itself in entertainment industry mergers. It's as absolutely non-essential as non-essential businesses can get. The sun will still rise tomorrow if you can't afford to watch Game of Thrones, or whatever the current crap is that HBO is putting out these days. And... there's always piracy.

I don't think it's really about any of this. This smells to me like a pump and dump scheme. Get investors thinking this idea is hot shit because it's based on a well-established brand, and then make off with the money before anyone realizes the world didn't really need yet another microblogging service.