ericfrenkiel

You’re old fashioned.

The difference between equality under the law or equity under the law.

Equity is by definition relative. Equality is at least absolutely reasoned without the interference of relativity or subjectivity.

By what measure can a system of government be most fair and immune to corruption? The one where everyone has equal rights or the one one where some are “more equal” or “less equal” than others?

So when are we banning TikTok?

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Progress in robotics is beginning to look non-linear and it will have only positive impact on the world.

Skynet won’t be humanoid terminators. Or even drones. The real threat of AI is if/when it will be applied to the field of virology.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Progress in robotics is beginning to look non-linear and it will have only positive impact on the world.

Skynet won’t be humanoid terminators. Or even drones. The real threat of AI is if/when it will be applied to the field of virology.

The label you are looking for is “duly convicted party,” per the 13th Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Categorically, definitionally, and historically wrong.

What you are you are referring to is the following: “ Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

First, “welfare” here means “the state of well being.”

Second, it is tied to the “United States” as a whole - not any given individual, especially because the Supreme Court has ruled the government has no duty to protect its citizens from harm (Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989; and The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005).

Thus, if the Supreme Court has established that the government has no obligation to protect citizens from harm, it has no obligations to economically provide for citizens either. That’s called “charity” and it’s what churches have typically done by collecting revenue (tithing) from its congregants.

20th century governmental usurpation of charity by rebranding it as “welfare” is a distinctly modern concept, that also happens to be constitutional, insofar that the government collecting taxes to distribute benefits on a needs basis does not violate the Constitution, which is entirely different than being enumerated in the document itself, which you erroneously conflated.

In some ways it's even more expensive to remain "credit invisible" because of the security deposits now needed when you set up utilities, getting a mobile number, applying for an apartment rental, etc.

Building up a strong FICO score is the easiest thing with the exact mindset of OP with effectively the same amount of friction thanks to the "miracle" of autopay.

Seriously?

You don’t find the million people (the Uighurs) in concentration camps “outlandish”?

How about the thousands of students rolled into smithereens by tanks in Tianamen Square? Too “cartoonish” for you?

smh

I would say it’s your own bias which is informing your opinion. California has only gotten more “progressive” with each election.

If that makes you happy, I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode, housing prices to rise, and people to leave the state.

Yeah, no. Reality doesn’t bear out with your theory.

Epstein didn't kill himself.

Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors."

His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."

To effectively clean up the city. You can’t have tent encampments in cities, which leads to refuse build up, which brings the rats, which spread typhoid. Yes, this is a fact, and yes this is right now a current problem facing Los Angeles. If resources can be distributed outside city limits which are paid for by city taxpayers, city residents can see a return on their taxes with cleaner, safer neighborhoods. For those who are not drug addicts or bums, but need help to get back on their feet, those are the individuals who should be offered beds and resources in the city.

As long as it is outside city limits, but operated as a city extension, in something like a rural environment, I think this is a great idea.

Yes, please tell this to the next doctor you see who saves your life or cures your disease. /s

Well said!

Per capita GDP and gross GDP easily refute your apologia.

Pro tip: at least try to submit something unrelated to China every now and then, otherwise people may rightly or wrongly call you a troll.

Like what exactly? You accurately describe the cause-and-effect of not prosecuting petty crime whatsoever and that prison is not a sufficient deterrent, so what would be “less severe, more immediate, and more ‘certain’” that would impel a miscreant to not commit a crime? Please provide a specific example.

What you are stating is 100% morally wrong - that it’s better for a mentally ill individual to be left to starve on the streets rather than a society that can afford to care for these individuals in a controlled environment? Anecdotal support of your argument is a logical fallacy, and can’t be the basis of policy selection.

That still doesn’t negate dragonwriter’s very valid argument.

Andy’s argument is both illogical and naive ad absurdum.

I think your comment is out of line to accuse someone of racism. This airline has a bad record of aviation accidents, yet you would rather censure someone for simply not sharing your opinion.

Well said. Unfortunately even in software, it seems that might makes right.

HAL did have a baritone voice as he was “dying” - the visual implication of pulling out various modules was causing damage to his ability to talk and then think. The drop in register was designed to add to the unsettling nature of the scene.

The title is crafted so salaciously as to make victims of the real criminals: SMB owners deliberately hiring illegal immigrants because they are easily exploitable. Some of the franchisees were literally stealing money from their hires. I don’t see why we should be lamenting people who abuse and prey on others because of their immigration status.