Given their track record, I think it'd be more accurate to say DOGE reported thousands of times on the same one subscription being paid for by the taxpayers, because it appeared on multiple databases, no one at DOGE normalized those because they have no idea how to do that, and as a result the cost informed in their report was falsely inflated by three orders of magnitude.

The Cass Review was prepared following the same careful method of scientific meta-analysis followed by RFK Jr. and his vaccine experts.

No "/s" because this is strictly factual, and even more worrying due to that.

Some will. His devouts will think something along these lines:

"Sure, prices are high, but that's because they are attacking the US, and killing babies, and mutilating children, and then grooming those mutilated children into going to their secret pizzeria underground dungeons where they're raped and then sacrificed to Beelzebub, all the while their invading hordes of international military cat-and-dog eating gangs roam the cities causing riots, because they hate 'Murica and must be stopped! And He's stopping them! So higher prices are a small price to pay for Saving Freedom and Democracy and the 'Murican Dream and Way of Life!!!1!11!!"

And so will adamantly oppose any call they may make for Trump to step down.

Android has had sideloading for decades, and none of that happens.

If that's the case, then the way (W)estern, (E)ducated, (I)ndustrialized, (R)ich, and (D)emocratic countries raise their real children into becoming merely older children has hit an all-time low. Or high, depending on how one looks at it.

15-years-old are children? What kind of nonsense is this?

I understand wanting to prevent actual children, that is, those up to 11-years-old, from watching unvetted content. And providing a transition period on a curve once someone leaves childhood at 12 years of age and becomes a pre-teen, then a teen at 14.

But calling those in the 12-to-15 bracket "children" is an utter and complete absurd!

Oops! I inverter the sign. It's a+b >> c+d, not the other way around.

It might be worth it when a government factors in: a) the costs of treating obesity-related illnesses in public healthcare networks for countries with universal healthcare, which are most of them, and b) the reduced productivity caused by obesity, which leads to a non-insignificant reduction on GDP and in taxes collected, versus c) the cost of the buying the patent outright, plus d) the cost of manufacturing it in great enough quantity to, again in universal healthcare countries, distribute it for free to the population.

If a+b << c+d, it'd make "National Interests" levels of economic sense. And even more so if that was done by an international organization backed by several such governments.

From a current 3rd-worlder to a future one, welcome to the club! Our generalissimos also love their birthday military parades, as do yours! 3

OOoOoooOooO!

OooOoooOOoOOooOooooOOOOooo! ~haunts~

~dies~

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! ~sparks~

The side of truth always loses at first. Then truth comes back with a vengeance. It happens every time.

Are you a billionaire? No?

Do you hope to become one, and have a clear path ahead to reach that objective? Also no?

Then why are you defending them?