Citation needed?

They might give more away if it didn't entail giving away control of their company.

It's been over seventy years, and still the public only wants sequels. /s

Right, but he's suggesting that it holds true. Through experience, I can guarantee that my macaroni picture is worth absolutely nothing to a random stranger. They may recognize that it holds value to another, but they are not that other and will trash it.

Nobody puts up "found macaroni art" posters.

Just the opposite. He's saying that if we accept that our sentimental things hold value, we should respect that others' sentimental objects hold similar value to them.

Because I don't want to throw away my macaroni picture, I should not force others to throw away theirs.

Is MST the French term for an STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease)?

There's no good reason for bullying.

But yeah, I get it.

Unless they're wearing nametags and sandwich boards describing their crime, I doubt anyone would notice.

Are they looking to write off government debt? Like, all those savings bonds we bought never get paid back? Do they realize government debt is largely to its own citizens?

On older hard drives with magnetic memory (not the fancy M.2 and flash stuff we have now), you had to defragment drives.

Data was stored magnetically and you had to move a magnetic reader head over it to recover the data. Because the data took up physical space, it was faster for hard drives to store related data close together. As you deleted some files, the remaining files stayed in the same physical place. To make things faster, you would copy your files every now and then to condense them. Bringing all those fragments together was "defragging."

In modern drives, it takes the same amount of time to access all parts of your hard drive, so defragging is no longer necessary.

The full term is "Youth Not in Employment, Education, or Training." It doesn't count people retired, and if they're making money from investments, they are considered self-employed.

It does count people being supported, though if it's because of disability, that's a different category. It's possible they're just self-sufficient, but I'd they live in a city, I doubt they farm enough to feed themselves and get their income elsewhere.

As long as we have a progressive taxation system, the solution you described is literally wealth redistribution, taking wealth from one source and putting it in another. It's a valuable function of government for maintaining a healthy economy. The question is by how much.

> The right needs to stop thinking that Nancy Pelosi is speaking for the left.

Isn't she House Minority Leader of the largest left party? Or at least, the leftmost large party? I feel like that's a reasonable assumption.

Not in Employment, Education, or Training.

It means they're doing nothing for income and doing nothing to improve their situation.

Soccer players tend to overreact, but I think this one's genuine...

Being mean to a chatbot is like playing No Russian from Call of Duty: MW2. Of course it's horrific to do in real life, but it's not real life. We can use it to think about and reflect on real world issues, but the game itself is fine.

I can see two things that being mean to chatbots might cause ethical issues. The first is training real people in how they act in relationships. It's been shown that playing video games doesn't morally affect you much in real life, but this is interacting in the same way that we interact with real people. We know that people are meaner over the Internet than in real life. I'd like to measure this in some way before taking a stance on it.

The second is that chat bots are built using existing real-world conversations. Being mean to chatbots means the next generation of chatbots is mean, too. The last time one got exposed to the Internet, we had it praising Hitler within hours. It's not good for the chatbot industry, and ironically sabotaging work others produce sincerely might be considered ethically wrong.

This is absurd, and would be funny if it weren't so sad. This is supposed to be some kind of statement about how horrible Qatar is, and we're doing it by wearing a rainbow armband?!

If you don't support Qatar, then don't play in the World Cup. Don't give them the revenue. It's not enough to say "we don't support you" while you're currently supporting them.

I'd be less worried about the police and more worried about the angry druggies.

That would just mean there's a biological imperative towards certain actions. An appeal to nature would not mean it is objectively moral.

Plus, these things change over time. Ask people what they think of gay marriage now versus fifty years ago. If the people truly determine what is moral, then it was morally wrong fifty years ago.

Which is why duels should become legal again.

This article is focused on how people may view science similarly to how they do morality, not a judgment on whether or not it should be moral or have findings based on morality.

... why? Did it stop them from doing something else creative with it?

MAGA people love winners. When he lost, a lot of them jumped ship. It's partly why he never admitted he was wrong. It would have turned off a big part of his support.

... and there's no record of it with context, or witnesses (unless you wait for them to draw.)

It's not great, but is there a better suggestion?

I would put the least changing variable on bottom. It is difficult to tell if taxes have changed or stayed the same.

Just a guess, but if they can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shooter was the aggressor, it would be a failed prosecution anyways... so they save some time and money and skip prosecution.