“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
Butler, who was age 16 and 17 at the time of the offenses, was previously denied a request to be charged as a juvenile. But during a July 24 hearing, his status was changed to youthful offender, granting him the chance for rehabilitation and less severe punishment than what an adult would receive.
You’re leaving out the fact that the judge actively changed Butler’s status to make this slap on the wrist possible. This wasn’t a guaranteed thing just because of his age.
“We can’t do protest because the ultra-wealthy pay the working class to clean it up. I am very enlightened.”
Article is good, but here’s the original Nature article, as BBC News doesn’t link to it.
You’re not contradicting anything they said, and you’re not contradicting that Steam is a monopoly.
That tends to happen when you have a monopoly on an industry where you get 30% of the revenue from other people’s hard work.
Name is Andrew Johnson
Somewhere, somehow, I slipped and fell into The Onion.
You reach the right conclusion at first but then fail to realize this wasn’t skipped because they thought it was bullshit – otherwise it would be waived across the board.
Regardless of if they were accidentally correct, this has mens rea written all over it. They wish to normalize blatant corruption, and you’re giving that to them.
Trump is inconsistent with Christian principles in the same way that Jon Brower Minnoch was inconsistent with proper dieting. What the fuck?
Stop spamming LLM slop, OP.
Get that first week of Macroecon 101 shit out of here before I go into outrage withdrawal.
you dislike clarity
If you can’t read the title in the OP and immediately understand what it means, that says more about your reading comprehension than it does about how much I like clarity.
I agree your title is better – just that the original commenter is being needlessly pedantic instead of meaningfully discussing the article’s subject.
If you want to be needlessly pedantic about a title everyone understood: no, that’s not what the title says. It says two [people are] dead after being found in flooded basements. It does not at any point say when they died – just that they were dead after being found.
More specifically, it does not ever say they were not dead before being found. If I say “Julius Caesar is dead after 9/11”, it’s absolutely true; he was and has been in a state of death following the 9/11 attacks.
If you want to play pedant, don’t assume you’re playing alone.
resist corporate bullshit by spitting in their face.
“Resist corporate bullshit by eschewing the free, non-corporate option – which, because it’s open, gets better the more people use it – in favor of continuing to use the exact same corporate product but with an abstruse, hacky workaround that 0.001% of the userbase will use and will probably be plugged by this time next week. That’ll show those corpo fucks who’s boss. ✊Ⓐ”
Yeah, and it’s worth clarifying when we assign controversial labels to topics that we do so only insofar as reliable sources already consistently do so. Even if it’s an objective statement like “convicted smuggler”, that still needs to be balanced with how much that aspect of the subject’s life is covered by reliable, independent sources compared to the others. This is pretty similar to how we would treat a benign, neutral statement: we wouldn’t write “John Doe is a businessman, politician, and person whose favorite color is orange” absent comparatively lengthy coverage from multiple outlets about Doe’s obsession with the color orange.
I guess they think they’re a Homestuck troll.
Jesus christ, dude, we already do this on food packaging. What’s up your ass? Read two paragraphs into the article:
“They will have to disclose ingredients including milk, eggs, shellfish and tree nuts […]” That’s basically just what we already do on food packaging: list common allergens. Fucking no shit they’re not exhausting every single possible allergy. Again, what problem do you actually have here besides the fact that people with food allergies might have easier lives?
And by the way, the California Prop 65 joke you’re making isn’t indicative of government overreach or myopia; it’s indicative of how extremely present carcinogens are in the products we use. The list of Prop 65 ingredients is very thoroughly vetted, and items are only included when a clear, causal link to cancer can be reliably established.
with less interpretation of social cues and a greater ability to focus.
“ability to focus” is more accurately described as “tendency to focus”. “ability to focus” connotes control over focus, which… from lived experience and what I’ve read, just isn’t generally true. Autistic inertia – the inability to defocus and then focus on a new context – is very real. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder not just because of an ignorance of social cues but because of how rigid, inflexible patterns of behavior often interfere with daily life.
and the Supreme Court did nothing because
Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: “the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.
But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn’t directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835’s Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should’ve been illegal on the basis of Worcester v. Georgia, but again, the SCOTUS doesn’t just go around enforcing cases it didn’t rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that’s the Executive’s job.
“The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans” is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.
“dude” as an interjection is widely used gender-neutrally in modern slang, although there are still faint connotations of a male listener.