saltedshiv

But could you change it to km-per-litre?

Are flatpaks not all sandboxed? I thought the concept of flatpak and snap was that it offered sandboxing in a way what was never implemented to normal repo packages

Attackers and state actors sometimes appear to behave indiscriminately

Are you saying that I should be required to execute all code on a web page? That's the eventual point this train of thought will lead you to.

You use obfuscation software for instagram? Im intrigued

Do nonresidents that are not presently in the United States have constitutional rights?

I've had a Dell Precision 5510 and now I'm using a Precision 5520. Ive run Ubuntu, but am currently running Fedora 29 on the 5520. Fantastic machine. Best Linux on laptop experience I've ever had.

Ive been meaning to make a PR of feature request to add individual URLs to the blocklist

If you're not opposed to non-free software and like quality products, I highly recommend you check out Crossover[0]. It allows you to run Microsoft Office on your linux machine.

[0](https://www.codeweavers.com/products/)

Everytime bail comes up I see the same comments. Like, nearly word for word. The more I let that set in, the more uncomfortable I feel

Keybase has chat. Available on desktop and at least Android

What are you using to convert articles to audio? Is that a feature of the pocket app?

Licensing

also Chase.com

Do you have a source for this?

I'm sure that this fine is designed to effectively bankrupt the company so that it can be nationalized by the state.

I use Navicat, its fantastic.

I don't even know how to begin to search for sources about "when in the late '40's/early '50s lots of kids took a gun to school and stored it in their locker..."

I'm not questioning your own validity, I'd just love to know how pervasive this was and where it was happening.

I was able to find references about Justice Scalia in the Heller arguments.

I'll counter that illustration. Let's assume that there is no oil left that doesn't have claim by an oil company and therefore you are unable to compete directly in the oil manufacturing business. But, what you are really saying is that you think that the price for what utilization oil brings is too high, and thus you can compete with oil with another resource. This means that you could invest in whale oil, coal, solar, wind, natural gas, or nuclear, or something else. If the price of oil is too high, then there is large amounts of incentive to invest in something that might not even exist.

By offering those resources to the same spaces that utilize oil, you are competing with oil. If you are able to take customers from oil, oil will be forced to reduce their prices.

As I mentioned in the previous comment, you should check out the keywords I mentioned. And if you are thinking that I'm missing something, please direct some resources my way.

That's a mischaracterization. Many libertarians believe that perpetual monopolies cannot exist in a free market due to competition. So even though a cartel might form for some time or a company may hold a monopoly on a product, if the prices are not at true market value (too high, inflated, not competitive enough), a competitor will enter the space and undercut the monopoly.

If you're interested in reading more on the topic, search for keywords: rothbard, myth of natural monopoly

Your message seems to imply that its consumers fault for paying to little for food from California; that's a silly way to think about this problem.

California allows the disruption of true prices of water. If water is scarce, it should be more expensive.

If the water at true market value is so expensive that prices of goods produced with that water are now no longer competitive on the market, then that means that agriculture is not sustainable nor feasible in California and will be correctly priced out of the market by those who are able to produce the same quality product for less.

Yes, but the only way we can manipulate those energy sources is predicated by the existence of cheap malleable fossil fuels

The article presents a very interesting thought experiment, but I think the answer is flatly no, with explanation for this belief being the context of the article.

Based on the narrative, I think the premise and definition of "modern civilization" was basically how our society is configured today, regions, space between cities, social architecture, travel, available goods and resources, etc. Under that thought, the answer is as I said before, flatly no.

Without fossil fuels, the world could not take shape in the way it has due to the sheer density of energy for its weight. We currently have nothing else like that, and all of our advancements into new generations of energy rely on products manufactured with fossil fuels, cheap fossil fuels at that.

Even today, we do not have such a resource readily available and as safe as fossil fuels.

That being said, "a modern civilization" could come into existence without fossil fuels. I do not doubt the ingenuity of humans whether I am in the same period of time with them or not.

My belief on this is based on how our society would be structured when you cannot travel so far away from the epicenter of a city because of the cost of fuel.

This type of thought experiment is fun.