ricecake

So, for the actual answer to how you get private security: you hire a company like constellis (formerly blackwater, or Iraq war crime fame) or the honest to God pinkertons, who are actually still around.
You pay them unholy amounts of money and get some burly people to follow you around, with skills proportional to how much you're paying them. If it gets to the six figure a month range, they also get more war-crime-y because you're going for the highly qualified special forces folks who miss the fun of combat and murder.
If you try to pay what feels like a reasonable sum for private security you're getting a cop working a second job who is definitely not taking a bullet for you, and probably not doing anything more to keep you alive than what's coincidental to keeping themselves alive.

The company I work for does business in countries where kidnapping foreign business people is a common and lucrative way to make money (it's effectively IT consulting, we're not evil beyond the baseline capitalist level). We hire security people for preposterous sums and basically get former special forces who drive a car, make sure the person who showed up to the meeting is actually who they should be, orders delivery food, and tells you not to do stupid things. They try to keep you from getting kidnapped in boring ways, and if you do get kidnapped they coordinate the ransom exchange. (That I know of the most that's ever happened was someone made the phone call to verify that the car they were about to get into at the airport was the pickup, and were told that it was not, abandon your bag if they've already loaded it and immediately go back into the airport and wait for the guard who showed up a minute later and handled the police interaction)

In general just try to avoid being in a position where you feel like you need to have hired a hero.

There's an interesting, although ultimately flawed, argument that the 22nd says that a person who's ineligible to hold the office of president can't be VP, and that a person can only be elected to two full terms.
It's an interesting argument that he's not ineligible to hold office, so he could be VP despite not being able to be elected.

It's ultimately flawed because the intent of the amendment was clear, and if we're working around it to that extent we're really sort of done with the law anyway.

https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan-2024/

The makers of the image are listed at the bottom.

Different people have different skin, oils, water supplies and diets.

Everyone needs to clean themselves regularly, but the exact details of what that means varies by circumstances.

Most people are fine with shampoo, a gentle soap, and warm water.
As long as you're getting rid of old dead skin, excess oils and any grime you're fine though. Soaps make that easier, but they're not a requirement.
I'm prone to dry skin and greasy hair, so I use a shampoo, cool water and a scrub brush instead of soap for my body. Perfectly clean, just need to scrub a little longer to make sure I get everything.

Briefly looking at the wiki article, it looks like it's more complicated than that. The president does have pardon power there, but not all crime in DC is a federal crime. There's a lot of fiddly bits where for many purposes DC acts like a state as well as a city.

Correct. It's the cuts to the VA that'll piss them off. The Medicaid cuts will piss them off because it'll impact their families.

While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.

There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.

https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/biggest-privacy-erosion-in-10-years-on-googles-policy-change-towards-fingerprinting/

This article actually shares what changed, as opposed to just asserting that there was a change.

If you have reason to believe they are, you explain that reasoning to a court and if the reasoning is sufficiently persuasive the company can be compelled to provide internal information that could show whatever is going on.
Hiding this information or destroying it typically carries personal penalties for the individuals involved in it's destruction, as well as itself being evidence against the organization. "If your company didn't collect this information, why are four IT administrators and their manager serving 10 years in prison for intentionally deleting relevant business records?"

The courts are allowed to go through your stuff.

Just for an example that isn't visible to the user: the server needs to know how it can communicate responses to the browser.
So it's not just "what fonts do you have", it also needs to know "what type of image can you render? What type of data compression do you speak? Can I hold this connection open for a few seconds to avoid having to spend a bunch of time establishing a new connection? We all agree that basic text can be represented using 7-bit ASCII, but can you parse something from this millennium?”.

Beyond that there's all the parameters of the actual connection that lives beneath http. What tls ciphers do you support? What extensions?

The exposure of the basic information needed to make a request reveals information which may be sufficient to significantly track a user.

I'm sorry to hear you're having a hard time. It can be difficult to reconcile something you consider part of yourself being shared by others alwhile they also do or say things that you know are wrong. Regardless of your particular doctrines views on the matter, on paper it's not acceptable to wish harm on others or celebrate it.

I don't believe in a deity, and I don't hold it against anyone who does.

What you need to do, in my opinion, is taken a step back and ask yourself if you do or not, or if you're just not sure.
Then think about what makes you say you don't want to leave. You shared good reasons for wanting to leave, so what are your reasons for staying? What are you getting out of it?

Once you know where you stand on dieties, and have thought about what you're reluctant to let go you'll be in a better position to do what's right for you.
Some people stay in a religion for social reasons.
You might be able to find what you need from the church elsewhere.

Regardless of the answers, remember that you can choose to live the highest ideals of Christianity regardless of membership in a church or faith in any diety. That affiliation with people who are failing at that has caused distress is at least a sign that you're pointed in that direction, so trust in yourself and try to act with kindness and love, and look after yourself.

There are a variety of ways. One way is to run a computer program that executes each strategy and then just have them all go against each other some number of times like a tournament, or sometimes just "random matchings". Super fast to do so it's easy to try different scenarios and make a lot of different strategies.

They've also done tournaments with actual people, and then compared the different people's behavior to the different "pure" strategies that they made. This helps them validate that the behaviors carry over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

It's worth noting that nation states don't always behave the same as individuals, but often closer to the game theory ideal. Additionally, there are circumstances where tit for tat isn't actually the dominant strategy, specifically when you know that the game is going to end.