Can we use these glasses, or are they just as worthless as Google's and Meta's, where they choose everything for you, and you'll likely get a DMCA complaint if you try to use them for your own purposes?

If not, then $21.95 is about as much as these people should be charging for the product, which is obviously intended to get its revenue through proprietary software/services sales.

One of the problems America currently faces, is that we're still getting far too much science done, it's not costing us enough money, and the money it does cost is being wasted on paying the salaries of scientists instead of personally paying whoever contracts to kick back the most to political appointees.

I believe this will help solve all three problems.

Every single day, it seems like the White House does something to keep the ongoing Epstein Obstruction Scandal in the news. It's been the top story for months and every single day there's new news about it.

On Thursday, Todd Blanche, presumably acting under orders, spent all day obstructing the release of the information. And then he did the same thing on Friday. And now there's this UFO story, looking almost custom-made as a silly distraction. Blanche or Trump clearly wants to keep the illegal obstruction on voters' minds, as an evergreen topic so that it never goes away. But why?

What does Trump get by working so hard to persuade every American that he disagrees with a law that he signed, implying that laws is a bad idea and shouldn't be applied or enforced? What advantages are gained by an explicitly pro-crime agenda? What's the advantage of campaigning on releasing the files but then breaking my campaign promise?

I (naively?) think if I were in his position, I would comply with the law so that I don't go to prison for obstruction, and so people wouldn't notice every day that I'm still casually and continuously committing crime. I would let, no make the files come out, so that everyone can see the criminal witnesses confused me with the actual rapist, Biden. That would put me in a position where I'm seen as pro-law instead of anti-law, and it would also put to rest all the speculation that the "Epstein" files are actually mostly about me. Seems like that would be good for everyone, including myself.

So why commit obstruction when the releasing files will exonerate you and make all the problems go away? This strategy doesn't make any sense. What could I possibly be missing?

I feel like there's something incredibly obvious that everyone with a more-than-50 IQ has figured out about the president's lily-white innocence, but somehow I'm just too fucking stupid to figure it out. It's humbling, and makes me question my deeply-held faith in the president's genius.

The UK mostly doesn't do voter suppression. However, they did for the Referendum. Basically, anyone who might not be racist was not permitted to vote.

Even then, 48% still insisted on staying in the EU.

One of the reasons the UK doesn't do voter suppression the way the US does is because (until very recently) the House of Lords had a lot of people in it who owed no favours at all to the political elite but did have a huge responsibility to making sure that things functioned in the long term. This has since been corrupted, so the HoL is no longer anything like as independent and politically neutral as it once was. Rather, the two main parties have stuffed it full of sycophants, which makes it useless. Which, of course, was the intended effect.

Because those in the HoL were partly hereditary (and therefore not under anyone's thumb and impossible to manipulate) and partly chosen on actual merit (they'd done stuff that was actually impressive and good for the country), the HoL were the true guardians of the Constitution and the nation. The House of Commons has always been corrupt and degenerate, so a parallel system that politicians couldn't control meant their worst excesses would always be curbed. The HoL has defended the common person FAR FAR more often than anyone in the Commons ever has.

This didn't make the HoL perfect, or even advisable to retain in its historic form, but it made it immune to the corruption that we were seeing in the rest of the system. What we needed was a replacement system that retained that immunity and improved on it.

Although there is a right join, no far right join has ever been defined and there's no signs that it would in fact be possible.

Quite the opposite. He hates Anthropic and keeps trying to find a way, any way, to damage them. Those attempts keep backfiring, though. It's the internal image of his international misadventures.

Yeeees and no. It matters in terms of loans he can get from banks. A trillionaire gets an awful lot better deal than anyone else.

So although he cannot liquidate a trillion dollars, there's a decent chance he can borrow at exceptionally low interest rates enough to do pretty much whatever he wants because he has the moniker.

It's not hard to be morally superior to a childish self-righteous socipoath.

He's not bright, he's not clever, he IS abusive, and he is exceptionally rich. However, only an idiot equates "rich" with "better".

I would say more than half of Slashdot can match or exceed his intelligence. And that's despite the fact that Slashdot has attracted pet rocks as users in recent years. Actually, truth be told, it's because of that. Back in the younger days of Slashdot, I'd say 95% of the regulars were smarter than Musk.

All Musk has is money. And I can understand you envying that. But here's the thing. Smart people don't talk their company's value down. Smart people invest their money. Musk throws it around, such as buying Twitter and destroying the userbase.

Musk is not your friend.

Then We The People need (or have needed) to become post-newspaper, indeed post-any-sort-of-centralized-media, since all centralizations are pressure points for coercion and compromise.

Make Usenet Great Again? There is No Cab-NO CARRIER

If the problem was being genetically dead, then why do we have demand for sperm and egg donations? Both are a warrant for at least one of the parents not to have the genes procreated. Same with adoptions. Apparently, feeling to be a parent is not directly linked with actual genetics. And so I doubt any claim that childless people are inherently unhappy because their genes are not carried on.

We decided "I really really don't want x to happen to me, so I won't x someone else." And then we agreed that x will be categorized as "terrorism" instead of "war."

Then recently (yesterday?) we Americans apparently changed our mind about whether or not it would be ok if Iran (or anyone else) blew up America's civilian water supply infrastructure, no big deal, so we're doing that now, telling the whole world that it's acceptable. It's just war, what can ya do?

For now, people can worry about what type of weapons to use and whether or not certain types should be banned.

But in the future, all the debates will be about will be "how do we pick just the right grid squares in which to Kill All Humans?"

It was not "coal in your face".

I don't know about empty rooms, but it's very normal in Britain, if you're walking through a field, to turn left and walk clockwise around the edge of the field. But the problem there is potential for bias because of the area.