Just the way this is going to go I guess. Ukraine has to fight with one hand tied behind their back, because the US says so, because appeasement like that always works when autocrats invade sovereign nations… Imagine in the late 1930s the UK ordering, lets say Poland, to not set foot on German soil and only fight in Poland because otherwise (gasp) we might make Hitler really mad and he might do something crazy. So too bad for you Poland, but we’ll just have to adandon support for you if you attack inside Germany, just how these things go…

The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least “techy” EVs I’ve seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

deleted by creator

That’s all well and good, I agree with virtually all you said. It’s certainly the admins’ right to block or de-federate any community they want, based on risk or just because they feel like it, I have no issue with that. It’s simply my personal belief that discussion of crime is not a crime. Direct links to illegal content should not be allowed, but discussion about piracy in general should carry no more risk that learning about murder in a criminology class, which does not need to be banned just because it’s teaching people things they could in theory use to get away with murder.

I think we’re close to saying the same thing, I’m in total agreement that linking to illegal content should be banned, it’s the uneven enforcement of that principle across communities that I think is an issue. I know .world isn’t hosted in the US, so you don’t enjoy broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, but does anyone really think that discussing crime is itself a crime? If I say “here’s a scenario for how a group of people could rob a bank” what crime is that? If I say “hey I think there’s people dealing drugs on this street corner” what crime is that? And I can of course appreciate a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability, that’s their free choice, they own the server. I’m talking about, on principle, what’s wrong with allowing a community to exist so long as that community does not post or link to illegal content? That principle seems to work just fine for virtually every other topic but when it comes to discussion of filesharing, torrents, and the like, then suddenly the “don’t link to illegal content” principle isn’t good enough and it becomes “we must ban this entire concept for our own safety.” That’s the admins’ right and I have no issue if they want to do that, I just want to point out the glaring double standard between moderating communities so they don’t break the rules and banning communities so they don’t break the rules.

Linking to or posting content that’s illegal or in violation of copyright should not be allowed, but you don’t have to ban an entire community to do that, you just have to enforce the same rules that are in place for every other community on here. Maybe someone can explain this to me, but this seems equivalent to banning a cybersecurity community because encryption get used by bad actors sometimes, so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned since information about staying anonymous online is “sharing the tools and techniques” that could be used in assisting criminal activity. Ditto for cryptocurrency, ditto for secure operating systems, ditto for drugs, guns, and any number of other things where community discussion is allowed but illegal activity is not. I understand the need to draw the line at actually sharing copyrighted content, but discussion of lockpicks or linking to sites that sell lockpicks is not equivalent to going around illegally picking locks, except it seems that is exactly the case when it comes to piracy but no other topics.

Sounds like this “study” (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

“…the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake.” Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn’t control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn’t.

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn’t preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of “X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn’t the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!” Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It’s a great tactic!

No appeals based on incompetent/ineffective counsel for a civil case. In a criminal case, a convicted defendant may appeal on the grounds of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial. This principal arises because of the constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Such a right would be meaningless unless it implies a right to effective counsel. There is no such constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and therefore no such ground for appeal in a civil case.

Finally one guy is coming kinda close to saying what all Republicans should have been saying since 2016, and it’s somehow news. Christie and MAGA can both go get fucked, you’re way too late and many dollars short to suddenly rebrand as the principled one you angry tub of mayo.

Make sure to show him your love by not voting for him on election day then, just like he told you!

Whew boy, the boogaloo and the kraken would like a word lads

It got “Slammed”

Wow I wish there was some penalty for lawyers who deliberately made statements with this much bad faith. First off it’s State vs. Federal, so fuck off. Then we’re talking breaking into a building to prevent Congress from doing it’s job, while assaulting federal law enforcement, versus non-violent document, election, and conspiracy charges, so fuck off again. And by far most important, we’re talking about know-nothing foot soldiers who committed blatant federal felonies and had nothing to bargain with, vs Sidney the Goddamn Kraken Powell who must have hard evidence by the boatload that she forked over to score this deal, and who can directly testify about Trump’s words and actions and meetings she was in. There’s no comparison here, no equivalence, and these J6 defense lawyers trying to gin one up is just offensive.

Oh they will absolutely bring the hammer down if she doesn’t do and say everything by the book from this point forward, that’s the point of a plea deal. It gets the defendant out of (most of the) trouble, but it locks them in to testifying fully and truthfully about the case from then on. If the prosecutor/judge thinks they aren’t holding up that promise, the deal is taken away. You really do have to go full state’s evidence if you take a deal like this, and they are not playing around with the threat of piling all those felony charges - and more - right back on you if you don’t sing just the way the DOJ wants you to.

I don't see why they'd need to occupy anything. Occupation would imply that you wanted to control that area and those people. I think Israel knows occupation would never work and wouldn't try it. They've preferred to wall-off people in enclaves, slowly squeeze all life out of those regions, and when the people they have cornered inevitably violently lash out against their own slow-motion genocide, it's time to flatten the area with bombs again. Israel calls it "mowing the grass" and I don't think a massive occupation fits with that strategy. I think they want to break the region, scatter the people, and leave it to rot, not occupy and be forced to manage it into the future indefinitely.

It really sucks that the attitude of "how about we don't support anyone who's violating international law?" can't seem to survive a massive terrorist attack, whether we're talking about 9/11 or these horrible events. I absolutely condemn these unforgivable attacks against innocent civilians, and I absolutely condemn any response to those attacks that violates international law by targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, or by blockading and starving an entire city. I can see daylight between "we stand with Israel" and "we support any and all actions of the Israeli government and armed forces without caveat" but there's not much room for that opinion in the immediate aftermath of something like this. The ultimate price needs to paid by those responsible, but the City of Gaza didn't do this, and the Palestinian people writ large didn't do this. The trillions of dollars and millions of lives wasted in the 20-year War on Terror that 9/11 kicked off needs to be a cautionary tale, not something we look to repeat. To put it another way, we would not blockade, starve, and invade Texas just because a lot of J6ers and other heavily-armed anti-government militia folks happen to live there - we hunt down those actually responsible for actual crimes with precision and ferocity and bring them to justice. We don't respond to an attack by punishing the entire geographical area and ethnic population from which that attack may have originated. been there, done that, doesn't ever work. Didn't work for the Soviets, didn't work the Japanese, didn't work for the US, won't work here.

Good for her. Jordan doesn't have a leg to stand on thanks to the extremely basic principle of federalism that gives our 50 states huge leeway over how and when to prosecute crimes in their state. The idea that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would reach down from his national duties to actively try to investigate and derail the ongoing work of a county prosecutor is just repellent to the very framework, laws, and concept of the Union of separately-empowered states that is our country.

No kidding, I don't know why she feels the need to insert herself in this year's politics with this super divisive "cult deprogramming" language/narrative. Not that a lot of folks don't need to step down from the rhetoric of violence and demagoguery that's a big part of MAGA, they absolutely, do… but seriously, Hillary, you are such an unnecessary bull in the china shop on this right now. Like her or hate her, I think it's a pretty objective statement that bringing the temperature down and bringing people together just isn't something her presence and choice of language in this debate is going to accomplish.

I'd have to disagree with you on one point, which is that competing sets of facts or evidence do exist in many situations. In a murder trial, for example, the defense team may have evidence that points to innocence, and the prosecution presents evidence that points to guilt. Now weighing one body of evidence against the other, the judge or jury must decide where the line of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" lies. This is a matter a comparing one set of facts to another set of facts as objectively as possible against known standards and precedents, which, to me, is different than arguing pure opinions ("red is the best color" "no, I like green better") and also different than inarguable bare facts ("12 people are in this room right now"). Idk, just my 2 cents on it, but to me there can be shades of reasonable debate on differing sets of evidence that aren't covered by an opinion-fact dichotomy.