There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it's true.

... Come on. At least pick an issue where they are weak. This one is not even close.

Why don't you go for immigration or campaign financing or housing or health care? Those are softer targets.

Of course it will get votes. Reminding people of basic human decency is a time honored campaign tactic, especially when the opponent is being a giant jerkface.

Well yeah. Can't count on the US these days. Fear indeed, but who, of what.

You mean other than psychology? Are we saying psychology is not scientific?

Unregulated commerce.

The other question is better. Why should we allow data collection? Each use ought to be justified, because some risks obviously exist. The ethical burden is on the collector, in my opinion.

1. Why would anyone ever do that?
2. Define "sensible". For who?

Pot.

What do you want to know? The main reasons tend to be financial or logistical. Or legal, if they were a kid when they booked it.

What other information would help you? What's your goal here?

You can say that, but there are thousands of schools.

That is why we gotta teach the history at a young age. The policy question is difficult, and if we can share the knowledge first, in elementary or junior high, maybe it's easier to talk about policy when people are older.

Yes it does sound like that. The title doesn't suggest that he actually committed crimes. Sorry!

If you combine the two, it makes no sense. Who are you saving?

If the US and Russia fight and lots of people die, that's terrible. But in your scenario they were going to die anyway, from climate change. So who cares? Fight the wars and do the space race simultaneously. Why not? You're only going to save a few thousand people anyway.

(That is the conclusion of your scenario. I disagree with the premises, but since you asked.)

All is a big word. Maybe too big. But the general idea is neat.

That's generally false. But even if it's true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they're legally rock solid.

In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

The Pirate Bay will always be with us.

Yes, of course some companies are using it. That's what the article is about. The point I'm making, and it matters to employees in Japan, is that if employers want to use this strategy and avoid losing lawsuits, they have to be very careful about exactly what they do. Many judges have and continue to side with employees over employers. But filing lawsuits is expensive and time-consuming, and somewhat risky financially because you might lose, so sometimes companies get away with these shady tactics.

And depending on how much money you were making, you might just be better off using a couple of months of that boring time to prepare your resume and apply to other jobs, and then quit once you've lined one up.

Anyway, if your boss does this to you, and you go to your union and that doesn't work, and you eventually hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against them, the judge is going to ask the company to justify all of the decisions they made. If the company says that they're trying to convince the employee to quit out of boredom, you will win your lawsuit. If the company can provide some kind of plausible explanation for the adjustment in the duties that they're asking you to do, the specific facts are going to come into play, and you might win or lose, depending on them.

There's a lot more that we can add to that. Washington politics are so amazingly dirty, they have been for decades, everyone knows it, and Trump is different from other people. He's actually even dirtier than most career politicians, but he feels different from them.

You also have the problem that some government institutions are corrupt and big business is very corrupt. It's easier for people to imagine that conspiracy theories are true when they can openly see badness happening around them left unchecked. For example, if I watch on TV or YouTube and I see a court case where the prosecutor, lead detectives, and the judge are all incredibly biased and some of them are bad liars, then I know something is wrong with that courthouse. I might extrapolate and conclude that something is wrong with all courthouses. Which is to say, I've become more vulnerable to conspiracy theories because real bad behavior is left unchecked.

I wonder if you remember what happened on January 6th. A violent attempted insurrection, encouraged and orchestrated by Donald Trump. He is the kind of person that would do exactly what he says he wants to do. Do you want to repeat January 6th, so that you can be reminded of exactly what happened?