I notice some strange moderation efforts on a number of posts, almost as if someone wants negative views of Fox (and other right-wing media outlets) to be suppressed.

It's also evident that somebody with mod points doesn't realize that the existence of a biased FOX outlet means that folks can't also know that there are media outlets that are biased to the left. No, I think people aware of the misinformation/biases are well aware that there are biased media outlets on either side. At least I'd like to think so.

Though, we could talk about degrees of bias and hash that out. It is my *opinion* that FOX is more likely to give false/biased information than the other media outlets but I have pretty limited exposure. So, we can largely discount my views about the severity of the matter. The only news I really pay attention to is the local news and I don't even pay much attention to that. If it's important enough, someone will tell me about it.

A long time ago, I was a poor college student. One of the things I did to fund my life was freelance journalism (which was really just selling stories to a few local sources and hoping stuff went out of the wire and was picked up elsewhere).

So, I got the job and then decided to learn about journalism. One of the things I learned was that I should never use words like 'I", "me", "myself", or even things like "this reporter". This was a solid 40+ years ago.

Anyhow, as you can see, that has changed quite a bit. We also accept this crazy notion that 'anybody can be a journalist'. I mean, sure, they could be - but it should require integrity, honesty, accuracy, and be as unbiased as one reasonably can. There are also people who think that 'every side' should be presented. In reality, it's fine to be biased against things like Nazis and you don't have to give time or voices to those people who think otherwise.

Nuke them twice?

Agreed. I have a desktop from about the same time running Mint and have had almost zero problems running Firefox. I had one lockup about a month ago, but that's been it.

Other than the excessive nagging about updates which can't be removed, it does exactly what a browser should do: display web pages.

Have beets, will borscht

I'd like to see results of folks suffering post-covid goldfish brain.

Yup, it's all just stardust that's stumbled onto replicating patterns of molecules.

Some patterns are more complex than others, for certain values of complexity.

If only they kept their FAFO constrained to their person and not everyone else.

Yeah, this isn't anything new. It's a link with a UUID embedded in it and confirms that the email address is a real one and an active one. Unsubscribing using their link is a bad idea and has been a bad idea for *decades*. Just mark it as spam and move on. The potential for the link to contain malware is nothing new.

I'm not sure that I agree with sending them to the new prison in El Salvador. That place is inhumane. As much as I hate spammers, I do think we need to treat criminals with a degree of humanity.

Hiring a guy who injected children with an anti-puberty drug to show vaccines cause autism.

Correct. If Congress okays a president receiving a gift, money, title or such from a foreign government, then it is okay. Otherwise, it is not permissible.

For more information.

no longer suffice.

General P. Funtimes has lost the war!

No. If you read the text, it is only on receiving items from foreign heads of state:

Article I

Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

It's just that all past presidents did their best to not enrich themselves while in office. Carter put his peanut farm in a blind trust to avoid a conflict of interest while he was in office.

The patent is granted by the government in the first place, they don't need to give it away and then buy it back.

The government doesn't own the patent. All the government is saying is a particular idea/concept/formulation/whatever is unique and was created by (fill in the blank). They are not paying the person/company anything for the patent. The person/company pays them.

They can't give away a patent because it's not theirs to give away.

How fast do you think this will fail? Given his track record of business failures, this will be another one added to the list.