supazek

In Minnesota I would say it’s de facto decriminalized. I bought a house from a guy who had more than 3 grams of fentanyl and half an ounce of meth when he got busted. His fourth strike with this level felony and overall at least his 10th time in jail. He got a sentence of 14 months in prison. Not exactly hard time for someone who is literally out there killing people. And yes I’m still looking for money buried in the yard

I’ve put barely any thought into it but I think a “localnet” would be better. Your usage is entirely based on calculated geoposition and the userbase is segmented into regions based on user count. More than X0,000 users in any one region and it splits to keep things small. This would be a limitation for hosting content. If you want to send a message out to another person in a different region you’d have to make a deliberate effort to do so and it will be private such as a letter would be.

Idk if that would achieve my goals and honestly I can’t plainly state what my goals are. All I know is I get tired of privileged California snobs telling me how things should be in my back 40

Covid would not have even been recorded if it happened 100 years ago. Start flashing on the screen the numbers of people killed by drunk drivers every week and let’s get something done about that instead of crashing trust in our national institutions —- with no survivors!

Okay I’m focused on it

Why don’t the government just look here? Already like 4 great ideas in the HN comments. Get it together ya dummies!

Thanks, buddy

Can you define hate speech? Or “politically vulnerable”? I’m not dogging you but this sounds like an argument that someone who would like to ban E2E encryption would make. No one has a right to not be offended and we have already clearly defined where words become terroristic threats. Although the law is the least of my concerns as I get downvoted for having an opinion not totally in lock step with the social-liberal worldview.

>myopic consumption pattern

Neat project. I tend to believe things like this will be more useful 50-100 years post-collapse though. And it seems to me the post-apocalyptic computer niche will be more likely filled by the vast quantities of RPis left in junk drawers rather than the dozen or so computers that will have been prepped with something like this.

Woah, now THIS is Science :^)

>living things take this weird detour into lower entropy

Take a look at “Into the Cool” by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. It’s about as academic as it can be while remaining accessible. It’s basic premise builds off of the truism that “nature abhors a gradient” and attempts to lay out a theory that the gradient of solar energy falling on the planet (along with a plethora of other rarer factors) generated higher-complexity constructs as a way to absorb and reduce that gradient. There are plenty of non-living phenomena in nature which are subtly very organized but which result in net increases in entropy in the longer term. One of the examples described in the book are a kind of voronoi cell pattern that emerges when heating a thin layer of oil which succeeds in reducing the temperature gradient very effectively. Even if it isn’t a hard hitting proof of the abiogenetic mechanism it is still a very interesting read.

I forget which country has this policy, but basically your income tax is reduced by 25% for each child you claim. So, have 4 kids and no income tax. It seems like more effective policy to promote births rather than punish contraception.

In what way would they ban something? I mean, what would that mechanism look like? Honest question. It seems that they would only be able to rule some legislation unconstitutional or to rule on a case to set a precedent.

FWIW I think the Supreme Court overall does an amazing job upholding the constitution. The Roe v Wade upset made sense from a legal perspective and they have a strong recent history of supporting citizens rights in the face of overreaching LE agencies.

>Columbus

Promises of material wealth and resources created an economic and political incentive

>transatlantic

Extremely cheap - and having been demonstrated as possible encouraged many fame seekers or flight enthusiasts to recreate the feat

>Nukes

Obvious reasons - not to lose geopolitical leverage

>satellites

Both in development at the same time. Also there is a real technological benefit in the ability to launch controlled orbital antennas which was obvious even to lowly radio engineers

The obvious answer as to why no one ever did it the second time is that it was never done the first time and that space is, in fact, fake. For the sake of argument (assuming space is real) it would probably be too costly for any other nation for no material/tangible benefit. USSR surely could have done it, but the risk of losing the crew and experiencing bad PR probably outweighed the potential benefit of being the first loser. Even a perfect series of missions wouldn’t have helped them with the very serious problems they were dealing with on the ground. They knew they could get their precious space rocks cheaply and with less risk just by waiting a while. China (more specifically the CCP), on the other hand, could very seriously use a moon landing right about now.