I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it's been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it's still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.

Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.

I wonder who scores better?

What procedural step is being abused here to allow one Senator to have this much influence? Or is this another case of one Senator being the face while backed by the rest of their party?

I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing ~~Confederates~~ southern conservatives.

He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.

https://www.history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans?cmpid=FACEBOOK_FBPAGE__20181210&linkId=60909388

I think too often we get caught up on "the game" and try to frame decisions solely in that context.

The reality is that sometimes in politics people hold genuine beliefs, and when it comes to the GOP I think a non-insignificant caucus of them genuinely opposes abortion for various personal reasons.

I think their words are accurate, it's just that their allegiance isn't to the United States of America.

I don't think he knows how SCOTUS works...

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his "X" app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it's a terrible idea that's a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it's usage. The rest of the world isn't interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It's the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there's no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you're too busy playing a dozen others.

This line from Schindler's List always stuck with me:

“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”

The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.

It's stuck with me for two reasons, I think.

First, it's an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that's a powerful way to view the individual.

Second, it's a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it's enough. You can't save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you've saved the world.

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!

I don't think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone's property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.

This is just bizarre...what's the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov's movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?

Just...bizarre.