There's a growingly popular javascript schema validation library I avoid like the plague because its author was a whiny child on reddit who would get into flamewars with a bunch of people and then suddenly delete all his comments.
There's a lot of reasons not to trust a library with an unstable Code Owner.
It's an extreme-case prisoner's dilemma. For shoppers to prevent a Walmart/Amazon monopoly, people would have to both give up convenience AND affordability in hope that everyone else had the same radical values. There were PLENTY of boycotters for both, but they just weren't anywhere near enough.
At some point, when you're starving and Sam Walton comes by and offers you food your family can afford, you pull the trigger. And I don't fault someone who does that.
Five years is literally the worst sentence you can get for the crime he pled guilty to. From how it's worded, the most recommended penalty for that crime appears to be a $5000 fine and maybe a little jail time.
They "threw the book at him" by all definitions of the word.
If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can't sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.
Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.
I've heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?
I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.
For people like me who go down for a half hour and feel like a train wreck for 8 hours when they get stabbed a little, I'll take a 1.5min one.
If you told me I needed to run on a treadmill for an hour while the ultrasound worked, I'd STILL take it over getting stabbed a little.
According to this comment, YOU should be downvoting yourself for your previous two comments.
You straight out suggested we should be diplomatic with the Far Right.
"First they came for the socialists..."
The moment someone courts Nazism or Fascism, diplomacy goes out the window for anyone worth being considered. There's a reason the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and that reason stands for fascists and other intolerant authoritarians or hate groups.
For what it's worth, I feel the same way about tankies. Anyone who would see me dead or censored by force does not get the right to compromise. The Republicans lost that right the moment the first innocent woman got locked in a cage post-Dobbs, if not pre-Roe in the first place.
You just described a Leftist, in some ways. Disagreeing with both majority parties doesn't mean you have to stand between "evidence-based" and "far-right".
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days
That's being in the middle of the two positions. It's not that there's a contradiction, but that you just ate up the rhetoric that BLM protesting was all "riots lasting for days". And "Police Reform" is a middle-of-the-road alternative to "follow the evidence, defund 90% of the police and have non-lethally-armed services do those things". This fits our description of centrist to a tee
There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them
Sure. I'm a leftist who feels this way. The "real center" here, though, would be the Democratic party, who still want less gun control than most civilized nations. Your view perhaps resembles the "the Right is so bat-shit insane that conservatives are confused for moderates"?
There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective
I mean... yeah there is. If free markets were effective, we should be gutting all government services and regulatory bodies. Nobody actually believes free markets are effective. There are those who embrace the buzz-word without realizing it, and then there are those who want the free markets because they are ineffective and that the profit margins available to them are massive.
There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded
Again, this is the formal Democratic position. The formal Republican position is called "Starve the Beast", and it is for there to NEITHER be a balanced budget NOR be government services funded. I'm not making that up. On this view, you sound like a Democrat, but if you vote for Republicans on their economic stances despite matching Democrats, that makes you the middle of the two views again.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
Obviously, but there are two sides to every issue. If we get back to the OP issue, it's that one side has been screaming "climate change is real and permanent damage is imminent" and the other side has been screaming "climate change is fake and God loves us". Centrists have been between the two saying "I know the meteor is headed for us, but my retirement is more important to me than the world still being around when my kids grow up". We've been dealing with 40+ years of that. But yeah, that IS between the two sides.
If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
The funny thing is that for 9 policies out of 10, most lefties just argue for the educated position against the "gut instinct" or "I know science says this but it worked for me" position. Hell, just look at the topic of parents hitting kids and it covers all the nuances of the leftist problem. Is the Left always correct? No. But the Right and/or Center is a broken clock in this. I think the Left is wrong on Gun Control and the Democrats are right. That's about the only issue I can think of right now that the majority of the Left is wrong on. Not because I'm a leftist but because I'm educated in the issues.
The right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with some of their stupider points as well.
Not quite. They pretend centrists are the far left and shit on them, so that "moderate" really means "neocon but not seeking Handmaid's Tale".
These people are not “secretly right-wing” and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum the only serves to limit conversation.
Anyone who voted Trump in 2020 was either ignorant or Right-Wing, regardless of what they claimed to be. He is against fiscal conservativism, against modern medicine, and was caught red-handed working with Russia to steal the 2016 election. His presidency damaged the economy, but also focused that damage on states that net-provide resources for the country as a whole because they are Democrat. A person in New York paying an extra $10,000/yr in taxes with reduced overall QOL and COVID-dead family members "voting Trump anyway" is not a centrist.
the fact remains that no one would drink 3000 ml of coffee a day
This sounds like a lot, but it's only two pots. I used to do that all the time. I'm kinda surprised that "no one would". I know it wasn't healthy and I stopped because it was affecting my health.
Maybe it's just my area. A Dunkin Large is 700ml, and I know people who pound 2 in the morning and have one over lunch on a normal day. Then actually (their/our words) drink coffee on the tough hangover days.
it’s important to know that Teresa Halbach’s vehicle was found on the property, along with charred pieces of her bones in a burn pit.
Police corruption is the problem. Her vehicle being on the edge of his fairly large property is a lot less damning if it weren't for Steven's blood being reported in the vehicle. There were witnesses who claim to have seen it moved there, even if Zellner cannot seem to decide who moved it.
And you say "her bones", but there's two problems with that. The bones have been confirmed to be human female, but they couldn't confirm or deny they were Halbach's. And there's a compelling reason to believe they were not burned in the burn barrel they were found.
There seem to be two real possibilities in his case. EITHER it's a fairly ridiculous frame-up job or he's guilty. That should be easy because of the question "why would anyone go to THOSE lengths to frame Steven Avery?" It's not easy because the open animosity and bad-faith of thep olice in this case is compelling.
I think he likely did it, but I genuinely think the case is so tainted, he should not have been convicted.
You decided to go out on a limb to defend the Chinese government, make a false implication about it, and when you're called on it, your answer is "Nothing would ever satisfy you people".
What did you expect when you lied?
Do you concede the below statement that you replied to? I'll re-paste it to confirm:
Since this work contained positive depictions of gay men, explicit (by Chinese standards) gay sex scenes, and resurrected the ghost of Tiananmen Square, at the time, no mainland Chinese publisher would have published it, nor would the author be safe from government reprisals. Hence, its anonymous publication on the Internet.
Do you accept that is true?
Actually, I think they don't want linux gamers, with their higher technical savvy. Some game dev companies love how 90% of their bug reports come from 10% of their users (and even brag about it). Other companies would rather just not get those 90% of bug reports.