Ok so now you're either intentionally trolling or just really bad at reading people. Either way it explains why you got buried in down-votes last time you asked someone.

​

But no I'm fine thanks.

There's no reason for you to bring up "after a super crazy off topic tirade" unless you think it is those things. But I won't argue with you about what you meant. If that wasn't your intent, fair enough. But also, it's worth noting, people often use "are you ok" on both reddit and social media in general as a backdoor insult, implying that the person is crazy and not to be taken seriously.

You may not agree with the conclusion but this is not "off topic." Any examination of money spent on policing has a relevant path to examining where we aren't spending enough money on instead.

Personally I'd rather spend money on wounded police dogs than 99% of the things that the police spend money on but I'd also rather we not have police dogs at all (they are unsafe as chase dogs and unreliable as drug sniffers) and spend that money on social programs or schools instead.

To be fair we're talking cops here. No matter how much they act and pretend to care about their K-9 units, any time drug dog searches are put under scrutiny they threaten to put down all the dogs when the reality is they'd all get adopted in a month, max.

And their #3 hobby aside from coercing confession and pretext stops is shooting family pets for fun and target practice.

I'm not sure what's dumber, that you think a US passport costs $500 or that you had that much trouble getting a real ID which is at best a mid level inconvenience for anyone with the basic documents that virtually everyone is given upon being either born in this country or or becoming as legal resident.

The only way you wouldn't have what you need for a Real ID is if you were born in some hermit commune or if you aren't legally in the country.

Except you did report and they didn't let you in. I don't foresee a situation where someone actually gets penalized for skipping jury duty because the lacked an ID that they are not legally required to obtain.

It's possible they try, and it'll be onerous as fuck, but some civil liberties aficionado with the time to burn on litigating it will goad that response and challenge it.

(For the record I think getting it is a good idea and it's not a fight worth fighting).

Yes and every cop who supports that union is a collaborator and accomplice to criminal thugs.

The strength of their unions comes from the public support they get from people worshipping these criminals like they actually add value to society.

And I am saying that the reason they can't is because it's a corrupt system full of exclusively corrupt people.

Police are better protected from losing their jobs than virtually any other profession in America.

As a collective they have worked hard over decades upon decades to protect themselves from any kind of accountability and every allegedly "good" cop is still a part of this problem.

If they work in a dept with these policies and don't actively campaign against t hem and run to upened their union's protection of corrupt cops, they are also corrupt cops.

ACAB. Every single last one of them.

The reason he still has his job is because "good cops" collaborate with bad to ensure nobody is adequatesly disciplined unless they step outside the gang.

Which of course means good cops aren't actually good. They're accomplices and collaborators.

I swear to God every government service has Predators out there doing that shit. Even my town Water Department has big fucking banners plastered all over their website saying they're not affiliated with this bill paying service that barely technically doesn't break any laws but definitely lets people think it's an official way to pay their water bill when all they do is tack on a huge fee and mail the town of check that usually results in a late payment anyway because it doesn't follow the proper format

As I said elsewhere, you did give your email, you just don't realize it. Probably at a different business using the same payment processor.

If you ever said yes to opt in even once at once store, even by mistake, or an unscrupulous or lazy store employee ticked the box for you when they swung it back around, it gave permission for all of them.

That said there is a way to tell square to fuck off and disallow it, but I don't remember what because I did it like 3 years ago.

They did not get it through the CC company or bank. 100% confident OP entered their email for something once and didn't realize they were linking the two because the payment processors (stripe and square are both guilty of this but stripe seems worse) was coy/misleadingon the POS screen that they were doing it.

You did probably opt in and just don't realize it. They are most likely using square or stripe and at some point you put in an email for an email receipt at a store. At which point you gave the payment processor permission to link your email to your credit card for all vendors that use them.

It's still shady and I would support a law that requires every store to individually obtain your permission but I suspect it will get pushback because getting email receipts is a common convenience for people.

That said, as a practical matter regardless of whether it's morally right for them to do it or not, I suggest making a junk email specifically for store purchases so all that garbage goes into one place.

Do you know what federal means?

To some small extent, people are squeezed tighter for cash and headlight bulbs are more expensive than they used to be not just due to inflation but design.

Also most people probably don't notice for a few days. Even if they do they may forget or not be able to run out the next day to get one since when you are most likely to notice it's late and stores are closed or closing.

Also, seeing like 3 people in a day if you drive any appreciable distance is probably like a fraction of one percent. It doesn't take a long time to see a hundred cars on the road. If you're commuting on decently trafficked roads you could see a few hundred daily, and you only remember the ones that stand out.

Combine all that with the fact that we're almost at the point where it's darker for the most of the day and it makes sense that you'd see a few every day. I know I do.

No offense but I'd love to see an actual headlight halogen that is $3 for anything that's new enough to still run emissions.

>I think this is what bothers me about these quippy, short-form discussions like we have on Reddit is you kinda always end up with "okay we all agree on X, right?"

This is a complete false premise word salad. I probably shoudn't even be engaging since you start up so disingenuously but ok, whatever. Just because I didn't write a multi paragraph rant in response to a deliberately nebulous example doesn't mean I'm being "quippy."

Nobody just arbitrarily decided "pre teens can't drive." Age limits were established for driving because the societal cost of bad immature drivers outweighed the negligible benefit of a few standout cases who are good enough to handle it. In fact, the trend has been to increase the age limit over time societal mobility has increased and tolerance for unsafe situations has generally decreased.

Developed, modern societies have all collectively come to roughly the same solution over literal centuries of development that there are things young people are generally not equipped to handle as well as adults and therefore should not be allowed to do due to risk to self and others. We don't let a 12 year old drive because the overwhelming majority of 12 year olds lack the risk assessment skills and appreciation for safety from a mix of lack of experience and biological development. We also set age limits for other things like drinking, other heavy machinery, pornography, and yes, holding certain offices. Likewise private companies like banks and car rentals won't extend certain business opportunities to people who they have similar concerns about because their investment risk is deemed to be too high.

Reasonable arguments can be had about any of those and whether the currently set limits are appropriate, but you're not the fucking arbiter of that conversation and you projecting about wanting to hear the "road of the crowd" or whatever is not fostering that conversation or adding anything of value. If the person who gave that example wants to expand on it and counter my answer to their question with some points of their own, they know where to find this thread. You on the other hand could no doubt find something better to do with your time that wax philosophical about what you think is the tragic downfall political discourse or whatever.

Every situation has its anomalies. I can find you a 12 year old who can drive a car safely but that doesn't mean we should start giving licenses to preteens.

Imagine not being intelligent enough to articulate a meaningful response but still replying anyway lol.

The ACLU hasn't supported civil liberties as a core policy in a couple decades at his point.

The ACLU spends its resources where it can please donor whales. I.e. helping write shitty defamatory OP eds and actively trying to erode due process on college campuses.

I'm as anti trump as it gets but this is just an embarrassing waste of everyone's time.

This is true, but with a caveat.

They don't block them. But they do route all images through proxy services. Because of that, the sender can see that the image was in fact opened, and if it is truly unique to your email they can see that someone (presumably you if you're the only one they sent it to) opened it. But they will not see your IP and thus be able to derive where you were when you opened it.

Think of it this way. If you're suing me, and you send my attorney a settlement proposal. If you see no evidence that the attorney forwarded it around, a reasonable assumption is that I wrote it off quickly. Don't assume it's definite but it's workable information to inform your decisions on the case.

More to the point, if you see that email has gone to 5 other people in the firm, and an IP address registered to my insurance company, you can infer that they're evaluating it for potential settlement or at least a counter-offer.

The climate and ecological issues the world is facing are very real and concerning, but this is an odd, zero-value comment. Like when someone points to a single abnormally warm season as proof of global warming (or an adbnormally cold one as a counter to it).

The world doesn't work that way, and beachings, including mass beachings have been known for centuries.

No one is saying that they are exempt. But there is a reasonable floor where most people have "fully matured" to whatever level they personally are going to.

Nobody at 23 has the life experience and humility to run an entire town effectively.

​

An upper ceiling is a lot iffier for sure. I think in general we should try to avoid very old people who may be vulnerable to medical concerns (though mayor is kind lower stakes than president or governor) but I don't think I would straight up legally prohibit it.