Neato

This but perhaps crippling depression as well.

Chris Pratt as fired. I do like Tom Holland as link though.

Danny DeVito has to be pig Ganon.

Most of this thread is defending csam, which loli definitely is. WTF. Disgusting community.

uBO team (2 people) should not be responding to questions on reddit or elsewhere. They should just update the filters and post a “extension updated, should work again now”.

In the end, Youtube will win if they want to win. Google can throw unconscionable amounts of money at their techs to fight the adblockers while the volunteers spend their attention and patience.

You’re complaining about food prices and you’re buying premade food? What a joke. Do you know how much rice, beans and greens $50 gets you?

The amount of black burned on food stains around my burner will never come off fully. Barkeeps friend has finally failed me.

Wasted heat is the worst part. The sides and handles of any pan not oversized for the burner gets blazing got and the kitchen spikes in temperature. Gas takes forever to boil water as well.

Crypto. Is. A. Scam.

Do insider trading and market manipulation laws apply to crypto, an unregulated speculative asset? This isn’t rhetorical, I’ve no idea.

Agreed. Which is why drug addicted as a target group is so weird. We have tons and tons of treatments for addiction both chemical and mental. The only “terminal” addict I’ve heard of are the alcohol addicts who have destroyed their liver. But even they have transplant options.

Ideally. But if that’s the case, why limit it to people with drug addictions? Why limit it to the vulnerable and mentally impaired? Drug addicts aren’t usually terminal patients. What if this was applied but only to overweight people? Or smokers? Or the poor?

If there was actually a shortage of healthcare that couldn’t be solved by mere reappropriation of funding, then sure I could see that. But universal healthcare is absolutely doable in the US (can’t speak to Canada and any limitations there).

Therefore using death as an option for those who can’t afford health care that is priced aggressively is akin to genocide of poor people. And the price of this health care could simply be adjusted and the death option subsidized to the government’s whims. Couple that with the persecution (legally that leads to financially) of certain classes or groups of people by a hostile government and you have a recipe for a government to conduct ethnic cleansing while having an “out” in that the poor, sick people are choosing to die.

If your choice is no treatment vs suicide, that’s not really a choice, either.

Also you can’t really give someone a choice in life vs death when their mental state is unstable.

Agreed. Medically-assisted suicide cannot be offered to anyone who doesn’t have all of the health care they need without bankrupting themselves. Therefore I don’t think it’s ethical to ever offer it in a country where health care is a financial transaction for the patient.

Otherwise the government might as well be handing the patient a huge bill in the left hand and a gun in the right.

Yes, it does. People addicted to drugs have mental issues: addiction. That will warp their judgement. Medically-assisted dying is something that needs to be legal. But the doctors involved need to be sure that the dying properly consents and that is going to be MUCH harder when they have to judge it through a lens of addition.

To me this reads just shy of saying medically assisted dying is now legal for people with mental health issues. Which would 100% be compared to what the Nazis did to the mentally and physically disabled.

If a client gets an appeal for ineffective counsel how is that counsel not brought up before the bar for review? That seems like a death knell for a lawyer.

Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.

Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.

It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.

What’s the odds that this author is up to some heinous shit in his free time and this is just a philosophical cover?

Confidential is a wrong way to label that. It’s
PII: Personally Identifiable Information. So they must protect it so people don’t forward it and expose stuff like addresses and SSN. But it’s YOUR piiy do you can share it freely. And what you’re paid isn’t PII. Only other identifying information that probably goes along with it.