While in principle, I don't disagree. If you're impaired, you shouldn't drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.

However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.

Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal "no" to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It's the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.

It's also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.

water that is wet

Oh geez, better be careful making controversial statements like that.

Not gonna lie, that's some crazy decent editing for a joke

This seems to be the limit. One more very and it 404s

http://very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.very.large.horse/

In the same way that watching porn on public transit is a social no-no

I think you're taking it the wrong way. I understand it as "anything negative about Biden, is also true about Trump"

• Biden is old, so is Trump
• Biden struggles speaking cohesively, so does Trump
• etc.

There are a ton of things you can do with a keyboard natively on Android. I would imagine these use that plus a bit of software to emulate "real" movements, like the flicking down to scroll

My response to your question, is another question:

what?

So I missed it the first time. But the title is "A The Lord of the Rings Game". Assumedly to maintain copyright, they did not drop the "The" from "The Lord of the Rings" even though they started with "A"

Interesting how insurance companies demand restrictions to "special enrollment" periods or specified times to begin coverage. It's a tactic to prevent people from beginning coverage before taking on significant healthcare costs and then cancelling after their treatment is finished.

But yet, an insurance company is able to change coverage without following similar practices? Is just about as close to a bait and switch as you can get.

My only issue with Firefox is some extensions get a little fussy in-between updates, but it seems to be a Linux issue more than a Firefox one.

And my problem is most definitely a skill issue.

I think we're going to need a bit of an explanation here