They don’t fall for scams at a higher rate—they fall for online scams at a higher rate. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Gen Z is far more online than other generations, giving them more chances of being scammed. Classic case of not factoring in online usage.
Sure…but it’s not on him. Realistically, there’s:
I wouldn’t necessarily blame this guy, but our elected officials. If anyone’s to blame, it’s mostly Republicans (and Democrats in the early 90s) for pushing these laws so hard.
Sure, but as the comic specifically says, this is about neighbors, not friends. You don’t necessarily have a choice regarding your neighbors’ beliefs.
I don’t (generally) sail the high seas, but I’m surprised that people don’t use SysInternals tooling on windows. Of note:
ProcExp - A way better process explorer and has a built-in VirusTotal scanner for all running processes. 100 times better than standard process explorer. This in combination with windows defender is nearly always enough.
AutoRuns - A tool to see what automatically runs on your system. Included image hijacks and such. This is for handling potential post-infection scenarios.
Is from super early in the war. Like first 4 days.
I mean, I am on board with that. There probably isn’t free will.
But, we should continue to jail those not following society’s rules. If we could jail hurricanes so as to not cause damage, we would—why is jailing a person any different?
I don’t think I’ll be able to change your mind (I personally don’t think you’re necessarily wrong—it is subjective after all) but some things can be explained a little bit.
Leadership knew that the taliban was not responsible for 9/11 but entered the country anyway. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There was no strategic value in conquering this country other than intimidating other countries not to fuck with the states.
I don’t have anything here, really.
USA spends 39% of global spending on military but has only 4% of the population.
This is far more easily explained. The US has so many military commitments. NATO, Rio treaty, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Korea…and that’s definitely not a complete list. The US is also sort of the only reliable military that can be anywhere rather quickly. The US has historically provided a lot of humanitarian via the use of its military logistics. Kosovo, Fukushima, and Haiti come to immediate mind, but I know there’s a lot more.
Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.
Probably. But it is important to understand the context of the world at the time. The Cold War was a weird and potentially dangerous time. It’s easy to look back on this now with “we shouldn’t have been there” but it’s also very certainly possible if the US wasn’t involved there, countries further S/SE of Vietnam could have also “succumbed to Communism/Socialism” or just been plain invaded.
The US has caused so much suffering, instated dictators like Pinochet, fueled proxy wars in Latin America and in the middle-east, they even funded the taliban in the 80s.
Yes, definitely a lot of bad choices. But some were often believed to be the least bad option at the time.
It’s also important to remember that Communist/Socialist leaders were also responsible for a large number of atrocities. Khmer Rouge killing fields comes to mind. I’d probably guess that Socialist/Communist leaders were more ruthless & responsible for more deaths than US-backed ones on a “per-instance case”, but I’m not a historian and am fully willing to be convinced otherwise with evidence.
American foreign policy is insane and USA is a terrorist state.
I’m curious what aspects of foreign policy you find insane. Some instances make a lot of sense to me (Ukraine, for example). Others, such as Israel, sort of make sense from a “cold-blooded” point of view (needing an ally in the region) even though I don’t agree with it with all on a personal level.
I guess my point of view sort of boils down to: If there’s a power vacuum, a single group or nation will attempt to take that power vacuum. And the US certainly isn’t ideal, but very well could be the “least bad option”. This may certainly me having this opinion because I grew up in the US, but I personally wouldn’t want China or Russia, for example, holding the same position the US currently does.
The argument I’ve seen is that the condition part of the clause (insurrection) by language only applies to the bit after “who, having previously…”
Basically, the argument goes “It says you can’t be President or Vice President if you did insurrection while an officer of the US”—but it doesn’t say you can’t be President if you did insurrection while president of the US.
To be clear: I think it’s fucking idiotic and against the spirit of the law—but I’m no lawyer/legal expert.
It’s not quite that simple. To be clear, the argument being proposed by his lawyers is that he is not an “officer of the United States” so it doesn’t apply to him.
Basically, there’s legal precedent that elected officials aren’t officers of the US because they are elected and not hired. Add to that the sheer number of commas, “and”s, and “or”s, that it can get legally murky.
NB: Not a lawyer. Read about the above on Mastadon from a legal scholar. Will see if I can find the link.
Not really. I guess my son with Ewing’s Sarcoma and a non-existent immune system will just die?
Inb4 “don’t leave the house, lol” — you try keeping a 4 year old indoors for 18 months.