They turned it into a study of how the rotting carcasses impact the environment!

Yeah i was half awake, a bit harsh ig.

Maybe a better formed argument is that getting into a marriage legally is way too easy compared to the legal process of leaving one. Even if you have all your things in order and everything is completely amicable the dissolution can be a a very drawn out process, especially if you can’t be present in the state you were married in.

The part about being in a hospital, only applies if the partner is not conscious, otherwise they can consent. Some other counties have another method for this where if you’ve simply lived together long enough those sorts of protections exist. So yeah you have a fair argument in the US. Is it a valid reason for legally formalizing your marriage? That’s up to you and your partner to decide.

I think my major annoyance is that people put emotional value into the legal matter of marriage as though law and the state had some interpersonal value.

Socially it’s an excuse to party with everyone you love.

Legally it’s only worth it if you have kids, plan to migrate countries, or have shitty immediate family among other things. But if you’re just in a long term relationship with your finances otherwise separated, no kids or end of life concerns, then it can be somewhat detrimental as you’re just inviting the state in to meddle with your life.

LMAO trolling used to be a bit more involved than simply omitting the /s…

Look up The Handy

The technical complexity of showing a chronological feed of posts from subscribed accounts? Are you asking for one to scoff at thou peasant? You might as well request a toaster without bluetooth BAHAHAHA! BEGONE!

How did my boss come to embody every other department/group that you work with!? Literally one guy, fighting with himself about the ideas he wants and failing to communicate it while complaining that the solution should be simple and easy while making meetings drag on…

I get it now. I was kind if skipping some context. I was saying under legal means sharing books is fine and good(not paying for it). e.g. going to a library. But you can certainly copy books and distribute them. I posit that it’s nearly always ethical to do so. Whether or not it’s legal is a different question and depends on the material in question.

This facility, built under President Nayib Bukele’s “war on gangs,” houses over 40,000 men, most of whom were arrested en masse without any process resembling justice—just tattoos, zip codes, or looking nervous.

Not just American deportees…

Yes?

Did i say something anti-library or am i reading into this wrong?

Beyond missing the subtext…

I don’t actually read all that much. I’m excruciatingly slow and i don’t currently commute. Most of my reading was on public transit or camping. But the authors i like just happen to either be ok with sharing copies of their work or it’s available for free anyways. That said I’ve bought maybe twenty books in the last decade…

Textbooks from exploitative publishers especially i refuse to pay for. E.g. Wiley, pearson, McGraw-Hill, etc… As well technical publications and journals.

The great Gatsby was provided by school when i read it. All the books were in my k-12. Most the students couldn’t afford them.

No this would be rage bait for trump cult members.

The idea is expressed for catharsis. It’s only going to push awful people further into caustic masculine behaviors. So it’s not actually directed at them, its target audience is other folk who have to deal with their awful behaviors.

As long as you’re not unnecessarily approaching strangers in public and you build trust in your personal relationships then you can safely ignore it.

Edit: actually you kind of need to once you understand the problem being described or your mental health will take a severe hit. Talking from experience here…

The only books I’ve paid for are the ones where the author explicitly allows copy and free distribution.

Well, those and the ones that get bundled with online access way back in uni.

Silently installed device scanning software is spyware whether it sends data or not.

The only reason it wouldn’t report is to avoid legal liability. Protections like this are thin and hinge upon the legal system determining whether the applet’s knowledge is an extension of Google’s.

Separate hard drives fixes this one.

The snopes article doesn’t say it’s outright false, just that it’s not based on available evidence. So stating it as fact rather than rumor is misinformation.

The Vatican has failed to deny it for over 20 years of inquiry. The impact of this claim is benign compared to pretty much anything else the church has factually done.

it’s funny and harmless, meme on.