I don’t know. Personally I don’t need a “place” to go visit someone that is deceased, but I have very close family that needs that place in order to grieve. Pets or human family, they need to be buried and have a marker.

When I lived in a more urban environment the only way to achieve that was through graveyards/pet cemeteries. With some land and the option I’d rather bury people at home now, but lots of people don’t have that luxury, but still have the need to “visit” deceased loved ones, and know where they “are.”

I’m not one of those people, sounds like you aren’t either, but that doesn’t mean that a graveyard doesn’t serve a useful purpose for the majority of people.

Could they be more efficient? Sure, maybe. But honestly do they really take up THAT much space?

Definitely fits the unpopular opinion tag, but I think you’ve got some blinders on your empathy if you don’t see their value.

Agree in principle. Haven’t seen Yesterday, but Across the Universe soundtrack is my go to Beatles cover album.

I believe the word you’re looking for is “comic”

So yeah, sociopath. Shrug

That is the definition of unbridled selfishness, bordering on sociopathy.

If this is truly what you think and drives how you behave then you are a leech on everyone else that will follow in your footsteps.

I won’t have children either, but I still want the world to be better for them, and I do the best within my means to make that happen.

People like you, when they’re competent, are the ones that rise to the top of the corporate ladder and own businesses that expound the worst parts of capitalistic society. Greed, selfishness, disdain for the plight of others, no thought for consequences as long as they don’t affect you personally.

So, don’t care if you don’t want to. But internalize that you’re a POS if that’s actually how you feel.

Lists of real passwords are very useful for helping attackers crack passwords. Lists can be hashed with various algorithms and then the hashes compared against exposed password hashes. If a hash matches then you know the password, without having to actually brute force the password in order to try and match the hash.

Unique, strong passwords are the most safe. Reused passwords are for sure weaker if you use the same login/email along with them, but even if you use the same password with unique usernames, it’s still less secure than unique passwords.

I can use pishadoot everywhere on the internet (bad for other reasons, but as an example) and if I use unique passwords everywhere, my accounts aren’t any less secure, they’re just all easily tied together. If I use unique usernames everywhere but reuse the same password, in theory ALL of my logins are now more vulnerable to attack.

There are countries where this is culturally how litter is managed. Japan is a fully developed example - bins are hard to come by, everyone brings their trash with them.

It can be done.

He’s not a citizen, he’s a lawful permanent resident (has a green card).

Citizens go through the naturalization process. Green card holders have not done so, and retain citizenship of a different country than the USA.

You’re mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.

A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you’re correct that it’s much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn’t a “FBI” secret and an “Army” secret.

There’s no timeline for how long it’s been since you’ve smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it’s about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they’re investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily.

If you do an investigation and are asked if you’ve ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that’s bad. You’re obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that’s bad because you obviously don’t give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it’s illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that’s not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They’ll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.

At the end of the day it’s all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone? But it’s all about whether you’re trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.