kibiz0r

Character’s blue fur (bottom)

On the contrary. I want people to have their own opinions, and to buy the things that suit their tastes even if they seem silly to me.

And I want those things to have fair, consumer-friendly regulations applied to them.

And when companies try to abuse their consumers, and I want us to criticize the company rather than the consumer.

No, but there’s an amendment that says you don’t need such an amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You’re starting on the wrong end.

People want games that the devs care about making. Whether it has sex or friendship or romance or relativistically-accurate jiggle physics.

People don’t know what they want until it’s in front of them, but devs know what they wanna make.

When you blame consumers for allowing antisocial tech into their lives, you’re doing free work for the tech barons.

Pretty nice way to bridge the gap between documentation and automation.

We really are obsessed with replicating any and all sci-fi cautionary tales, aren’t we?

If Dolly Parton is politely asking you to stop being a shit, you’re a 100% certified shit.

The importer has to pay the tariffs.

Which in most cases is the brand-name company, incorporated in the US. Usually, the manufacturer is a separate foreign supplier.

Acer’s suppliers

The retailer usually receives the goods from a domestic distribution center.

So yeah, most laptop brands are paying the tariffs themselves.

Recent article that explains why the US Marshals would be a useful landmark:

Here’s One Big Way You’ll Know if We’re in a Presidential Dictatorship

The fundamental weakness of courts is that their orders have force only if people, including government officials, obey them.

…

[T]he increased procedural complexity of criminal contempt proceedings combined with the specter of presidential pardons renders criminal contempt an improbable recourse for the judiciary.

That leaves civil contempt, which, as noted, authorizes the imposition of fines, imprisonment, or both to compel compliance with judicial orders.

…

[T]he primary traditional function of the U.S. Marshals Service is to act as the enforcement arm of the courts.

…

Should the attorney general order the marshals and BOP not to enforce a judicial contempt order against an administration official, that would be an open repudiation of the rule of law and a plain declaration of presidential dictatorship.

What about my survey on diversity of investment portfolios with inclusion of private equity?