Have you tried slicing your bread thinner? Thick slices make sense for the soft, squishy wonderbread style bread that makes up most of the north american bread aisle. If you slice a denser bread to the same thickness, you're eating twice as much actual bread - just less air.

That NY Post article is inaccurate.

It claims the articles weren't corrected or replaced, but it wasn't hard to find the AP replacement article. It contains the correct numbers, and points out that the practice of widespread detention of unaccompanied migrant children started under Obama.

There certainly was press criticism of Obama for this during his presidency. Here are a couple of Reuters articles from during Obama's term publicizing the problem: 2014 article, 2015 article.

Should you blindly trust what you read from a media source without checking? No, of course not! Journalists are people, and have all the same flaws and biases and blind spots that everyone else has. But that goes for the NY Post just as much as it goes for Reuters. You read an article with an obvious slant, clearly marked as opinion rather than news, and assumed that the claims in that article were factual without making any attempt at verifying them.

What makes you think that this is a politically motivated list, and not a list of sites with high user block rates as claimed? Sure, there are plenty of right-leaning sites, but there are also plenty of left-leaning sites (e.g. feministing.com, wonkette.com) and sites that aren't political at all but have obvious reasons why someone might not want them popping up on their phone's home screen (reddit.com/r/gentlemanboners, furvilla.com).

That "presumably?" gets interesting. The Speaker isn't required to be a member of Congress, and there's no constitutional limit on the length of the term as Speaker. Traditionally the Speaker has always been chosen from the elected members, and there's a vote for Speaker after each election, but that's tradition - the constitution doesn't require it. If there's no House to elect a new Speaker, could the previous Speaker remain in the position until there's a House again to vote for a new one?

What are you going to lock up Obama for? Try to find a President who's never done anything shady that could be prosecuted. Obama ordered the extrajudicial execution of a US citizen via drone strike. Bush 2 started a war by lying to the country. (Bill) Clinton obstructed justice, and was accused of rape. Bush 1 and Reagan were both complicit in Iran-Contra. Don't get me wrong, Trump is uniquely terrible and his crimes are an order of magnitude more damaging than his predecessors, but you can't be President and keep your hands perfectly clean.

The norm of not prosecuting your political opponents is one of the norms he hasn't managed to break yet, though not for lack of trying - his "Lock Her Up" rally chants, his accusing Obama of treason. If that seal gets broken, it's not coming back. Prosecuting Trump may disincentivize future presidents from casually breaking laws, but the next Trump will have a much easier time prosecuting his own opponents - his equivalent of "Lock Her Up" will be a hell of a lot more threatening.

I mean, don't get me wrong, letting him off isn't good either. Frankly, I don't see an option that doesn't accelerate the spiral.

The 20th amendment states:

Doesn't matter *why* no President or Vice President has been chosen, only that they haven't been chosen by the fixed date. Maybe there was no election, maybe there was an electoral college tie and Congress forgot to resolve it, maybe they were both killed the day before the inauguration in a tragic unicycle accident, maybe after the election it became clear that the President-elect was actually three toddlers in a trenchcoat and doesn't meet the age requirement, and the Vice President-elect is a Chinese-made MAGA cap and doesn't meet the citizenship requirement.

As allowed by the 20th, Congress has provided by law for the case where neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified. The Presidential Succession Act states that the Speaker of the House becomes President. In other words, according to the 20th Amendment, Pelosi would be President unless the Presidential Succession Act is repealed before January, or the House elects another Speaker.

The 25th amendment does not override the 20th because (among other reasons) the 25th only covers cases where one of the two offices are vacant, not both. There's no way around this with any kind of "I resign, then you reappoint me" shenanigans, both terms end simultaneously at noon on January 20th per the 20th amendment.

There are still gaps in the procedure, of course. What happens if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office and the Vice Presidency is vacant? If a meteor hits DC, leaving the President in a coma and the Vice President dead, for example. According to the 25th, a President who is still alive but unresponsive can't be replaced without a declaration from the VP, and a new VP can't be appointed without the President's nomination. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, those magic black panels don't work very well at night. So we'd need some way to store excess electricity for later. Giant banks of batteries work, but have a lot of drawbacks. The best, most stable energy storage tends to be chemical energy (everybody loves hydrocarbons). Gee, I wonder if there's a way we could somehow transform electricity into a chemical energy store of some sort? It would probably have to be something simpler than hydrocarbons, which aren't easily synthesized. Somebody should really look into that - I'm sure it wouldn't solve all our problems, but would be a handy tool to have!

Yes, those definitions certainly have changed. Shall we return to the original meanings! For example...

Bigot: An overly sanctimonious religious believer

Master/Slave: A human who owns another human, and the human who is owned

Black hole: A mass so dense that nothing can emerge from its gravitational pull, even light

Democracy: A political system where every citizen has an equal say in the running of the country, as long as they're male, not slaves or the descendents of immigrants, and wealthy enough to spend their time attending government meetings instead of working. Also council members are chosen by lottery.

And that's just scratching the surface. Your comment uses many other words that don't mean what they originally meant, including like (your first use), massive, fucking, today, everyone (though that might just be a typo), engineering, and post.

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding what you mean by original. From context it seems like you're using it to mean something like "what it was at a point in the past that I feel nostalgic about". That would certainly be an original (newly created) definition of "original", though of course it's not the original (existing from the beginning) definition of "original".

If I'm being too obtuse here (by which I mean indirect or circuitous, not blunt or dim-witted), my point is that language is always changing. Yearning for a return to a time when words meant what you feel they should mean is understandable, but pointless.

It's completely reasonable to have a platform that bans pictures of poop (and parody accounts, and rude account names, and female nipples, and advertising, and repeated comments, and personal insults, and plagiarism, and satire that doesn't explicitly label itself as satire - all from the official community guidelines). If there are people who want to converse in a space under those rules, then absolutely Parler should be able to provide that space. Thanks to section 230, they're able to do so. Anyone who wants to post poop pictures or insult people can go somewhere else, or start their own competing service.

It's not, however, reasonable to do this while claiming to be a bastion of free speech that only censors when legally required to do so by the state.

It's still speech though, in first amendment terms. Not valuable speech, but speech nonetheless.

Of course, Parler's completely within their rights to ban whatever speech they don't like on their platform, thanks to section 230. Nobody would care about this at all if they hadn't claimed to be a free speech platform that would only censor when censorship is legally mandated by the state.

It reminds me of cryptocurrency - people decide rules are stupid, create a new system with no rules, and immediately rediscover why rules are important when someone walks off with a billion dollars of bitcoin and/or their platform fills up with turd pictures.

Prominent Democrats tend not to tweet such outrageous fucking lies in the first place.

Can I ask how you'd define profit, then? You're describing money the company has left over after paying expenses that can either be reinvested into growth, taken by the owner as dividends, or kept as a reserve - which sure sounds like profit to me.

The bill doesn't simply require them to decrypt if they have the ability to do so. It requires them to *ensure* that they have the ability to decrypt. Read 3119 (c). If they're currently offering end-to-end encryption, they will have to stop doing so to comply with this section.

The "unless the independent actions of an unaffiliated entity make it technically impossible to do so" clause gets them out of trouble if users are encrypting their own data using third-party software, but almost nobody is ever going to bother with that.

So what you're saying is that climate scientists have been making hypotheses about future events, testing their hypotheses against observational data, and throwing out the hypotheses that turned out not to match reality.

You're literally accusing climate scientists of doing science.

Be patient. The study you pointed to predicts an *eventual* 20m sea level rise over centuries, with a potential rise of over 1m by 2100. That's still a way off, last I checked. Blame New Scientist for not defining "eventual" if you like, but the problem here isn't with climate science, or with climate scientists.