When it's codified into the highest law of the land and doesn't work, and suggestions to do so voluntarily can't work to the point of being laughable, what options do we have left?

There's always Nancy Reagan's catchphrase: Just Say No.

Any particular game is expendable. You won't miss out on anything. Games don't even have the network effects and lockin that you get with other types of software; it's a part of the economy where Just Saying No is easiest of all.

Don't like the quality? Don't spend your money. They have no power over us except what we give them. Stop being so selflessly altruistic when it comes to actively supporting your own abuse.

It's so damn easy, and there's already hundreds of years worth of hassle-free game-playing available to spend the few remaining seconds of your life on.

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.

I have the opposite problem, uBlock Origin seems to completely block the ./ notification page (it's fine on main and article pages though). I don't know how to whitelist just that page.

What you say reminds me a lot of the violent husband: "Look at what you made me do !"
First of all those countries didn't want to join NATO, but the European Union. And even if they want to join NATO, maybe they should have a good hard look at themselves to see why other countries want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and Russia. And nobody said anything about nukes.
As for south american countries, if they want to associate with Russia, good for them, they have every right. And they are far enough !!!

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.

Because it makes your screen all dirty and gives you gorilla arms. Any other stupid questions ? PS: I've been known to punch colleagues who touch my screen after I told them not to.

To improve debit (total number of cars per minute) you can:

• increase speed
• increase the number of lanes
• increase density (lower distance between cars)
• decrease flow instabilities

Only the 1st one really gets you faster to where you want to go, but it's more complex than that. If you lower the speed you increase (4) which in turns increases (3)... There are density thresholds which behave like phase transitions in physics... It's fun to simulate.

The bad faith in your post is incredible. After 70+ years of hostility it's not like we can warm up to russians immediately after a regime change. You need to put up some efforts into it like happened with Europe for instance: economic ties, then unification, along with political direction, military common ground, student exchanges, etc... After a few decades we can talk.

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

No we don't. We just want Russia to be a good neighbor and stop attacking everyone around them.

I used to think this was more or less true. But now I see it's been heavy-handed propaganda the whole time. To debunk it just look at the map of Israel over the last 80+ years. From nothing, to barely a dot, to growing and growing. Is that possible in an honest way, i.e. by purchasing land like you'd do in your own country ? No, it's been done by stealing it outright, piece by piece. No wonder the people it's been stolen from are pissed and trying to fight back, no matter how you call them. Israel is the only country which hasn't defined official frontiers; let that sink in.

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?"