Your blatant ignorance or denialism is not an excuse for calling people names. Scientists have been making the same point as the GP for at least 40 years now:

Lol, Politifact. You'd have to go to Tucker Carlson or Truthout to find a more dishonest source. The headline says the law would not have allowed that many illegal immigrants, but the text explains why it effectively would. The bill was primarily intended to give political cover for record-setting paces of 4000+ encounters a day for months from well-deserved criticism on lax border enforcement.

Trump was against it because it would have codified lax enforcement of border security, you dipshit. He wants strong enforcement, not a norm of ignoring it until illegal crossings reach emergency levels.

7 billion hot dogs / 350 million Americans / 3 months = on average, about two per nine days

"As little as" four and a half times the average summer consumption of our infamously gluttonous country.

Yes, that was the bill that would allow (some would say strongly recommend) the government to ignore up to 5,000 illegal border crossing every day -- 1.8 million each year. With proper enforcement of immigration laws, it's now typical to have about 8,000 encounters per month: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/s...

One of the key parts of ACME is that cert issuers are supposed to check the certificate from different points on the Internet, so that they have a good chance of seeing different answers if that kind of MitM attack happens. They won't necessarily know which is the true server response, but they will not issue a certificate if they see a mismatch.

Perhaps you missed The Fine Headline ("In Last-Minute Move, Canada Rescinds Digital Services Tax, Restarts Negotiations", emphasis added) and the rest of TFS? I am sure you were not being intentionally off-topic....

Canada's Digital Services Tax was promised in 2019 and passed in 2024, so it's pretty safe to say it was not "a response" to anything Trump did as president. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...

There's been a broad obligation to do that for four years: https://www.canada.ca/en/reven..., although maybe some companies claim their goods or services are exempt. Google, for example, apparently collects and remits GST/HST for sales through its platforms unless the seller provides documentation that a Canadian official has determined that the good or service is exempt.

Really? I was in Canberra recently, and stayed in Braddon. In easy walking distance were Jarochos, Guzman y Gomez, Mad Mex (mall food court food could count either more or less), Fonda and Mezcals. Loquita and Paloma's are more bars than restaurants but very Mexican themed.

For sure it's less common than various Asian cuisines or even "modern Australian", but it did seem to be something that Australian do. Maybe Canberra is a special case.

Both of those cases came after the DMCA was passed in 1998, and the second was a major case applying the new rules in the DMCA. The US passed the DMCA to enact two 1996 treaties.

In contrast, Section 230 was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act in 1996, in response to two earlier lawsuits that were not about copyright -- as suggested by the name of the law.

Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree whether the way the general public uses "make [someone or people] healthy" is about diet and exercise to reduce fat, increase muscle mass and improve cardiovascular health. And whether those are all things that vaccines are really bad at doing. And also whether one's criticisms should be accurate and well-founded, even when one is criticizing a bad person. And on top of that, whether it's bad to take the kind of extremist position that says "nothing else he will ever do can matter by comparison" unless that person is actively killing a lot of people.

Section 230 is part of Title 47 (Telecommunications) of the U.S. Code. It has nothing to do with copyright, which is covered by Title 17.

If you want to consider copyright cases in the context of the Internet we could look at Metallica v. Napster Inc, which ... led to no changes to the law after it became clear that Napster would have to settle or lose.

Or we could consider Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., which ... led to no changes in the law after YouTube lost an appeal and settled the case rather than lose for good.

I think it is entirely fair to point out that the OP only makes sense if you read it as a cheap troll that means something other than what it actually says. You illustrated my point by rewriting the OP as "how modern populations get and stay healthy". Subtlety is not what insists on rewriting language -- dishonesty is.

My point is that the original comment was wrong because it was stupidly reductive. Vaccines don't "make America healthy"; they reduce the disease burden of specific illnesses, and they are only one part of improving QALYs. Your doctor prescribed tapping, for example, not a vaccine -- because the mechanism is different and the specific desired outcome isn't reasonably achievable with a vaccine.

But some asshole wanted to post an anti-RFK troll, and shitty moderators rewarded that.