Could you imagine a world in which both products catch on? I shudder just to think about it

It's objectively more effective to exercise more than to eat less. There are countless studies on the subject.

I swear 25% of our user base is Linux SysAdmins.

That's impossible, as it would mean 25% of our user base is also furry. Wait a second...

Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn't be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.

Alleged sexual assault with effectively no proof.

Rightwingers don't get a word in, as their brains clearly can't process a single thought :)

Only in 'murica (and the anglosphere) could people think that learning more languages could possibly be a bad thing...

Would you rather watch content in your native language, or subtitled?

Subtitled, 100 times out of 10. In fact, that's what I already do, alongside a significant portion of the non-anglophone world.

But it’s not the same as hearing something performed for you.

Considering the fact that nearly all TV media is made to only be fully enjoyed if you can hear it, that's a given. Deaf people are missing out either way, though.

There is a ton of nuance and feeling that goes into communicating through sign language that is not possible through text alone.

Just like there's a ton of nuance that can't be communicated by text alone when compared to spoken words, you mean?

the importance of keeping the language alive.

This is the only factor you've presented I can agree with. Programmes are presented with sign language because it's important to maintain awareness that it exists. Deaf people are a very small minority, so keeping their languages alive is essential.

Always take that sort of thing with a grain of salt. The UK is by no means innocent, but Argentina had no real claim to the Falklands - they were the invaders. Can't really forgive others for a crime you committed.

Yeah, they were just shot. There's footage of the bodies on the street, by the way.

It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...

So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

That would be incentivised, yes.

There were lots of tattooed knuckles and forearms but back then they were still associated with services or prison time.

They still are.