I gave you a perfectly legitimate premise, without the implication or intention of executing on it. You asked for proof of said premise. I explained why I wasn’t interested in proving said premise, as it would require execution. You persisted, so I set about execution. Nothing’s been done that can’t be undone yet, if…

Oh, I see, you’re not interested in the point; you’d rather be pedantic about my framing of the point. Gotcha.
I’ll turn the dogs loose.

Unfortunately, the “e sports” part is where the money is made. Whatever you can get people to stream is worth its weight in gold. Once the streamers give it up, you’re toast.

You are delusional. 90% of American teens have smartphones. Do you think 90% of American teens are absolutely lost? Do you think they would all be better off without smartphones? What is it about PHONES that you can’t figure out? You admit to giving your teens access to the internet, why does the device from which…

No. It’s not trivial - I can’t do it in 5 minutes. It would take a few hours or days to do the research and follow your digital footprints until I found out who you were, where you lived, what your phone numbers were, and whatnot. It’s all easily achievable - I implore you to try it out, yourself, just to see how easy…

If you can see where your kids are, I can see where your kids are too.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater; there is a time and a place for the death penalty. Blatant public acts of treason render the culprit incapable of integration into civilization, and therefore a burden on said civilization. The only civil thing to do is kill them. And while that M.O. might bring to mind…

You’re going to want to click through to get the real story. Splinter conveniently forgot to mention the compelling evidence of Swearingen’s guilt. Stuff like signs of struggle in his home (with the victim’s lighter left in the debris) and Swearingen’s possession of pantyhose that match the murder weapon.

Of course I do. Disney started off on some bullshit, Sony walked away. Both of those were tactics. Disney’s betting public opinion is in their favor, while Sony is betting it’s in theirs. When the public opinion becomes codified, they’ll both know how much of the public opinion they have to gain or lose at the table.

Yeah, I’m in this camp. I don’t really care about anything upcoming in the MCU, but I’m very much looking forward to new Tom Holland Spider-Man movies.
Disney needs to come to the table with a serious offer (none of this 50/50 shit), and get Spider-Man back.

What you quoted there was untrue, yes. It was placeholder while I looked up the actual timeline, which I had forgotten about, and it was edited shortly after posting. I apologize for the error.

At conception

Not to even mention the MAIN reason: enterprise buy in. So many business to business apps were written in ActiveX/ASP.NET with deeply coupled backends, and they all required IE to use. So when businesses FINALLY got around to updating them, they said “make it work in chrome” or “make it work in Firefox”.
But Microsoft…

Let me ask you this, is it wrong for me to just kill you?

Okay, great! At least you can get that far. Of course, on that definition alone, you’re including things like certain crystals, and excluding things like certain viruses, but it’s not like you care. You’re quoting a quack who can’t even figure out when a zygote is created (24 hours AFTER conception, not “at the moment…

Explain how it’s a life at conception, THEN you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, you’re just arbitrarily deciding to ignore the sentience and standing of a living, breathing woman, in favor of what you FEEL like should be considered another human (but which no law - no rule withstanding the logical or…

I’m not sure what you were trying to reference, but Fed. 46 was written by Madison (not Hamilton), and was mainly about how state armies, formed by citizens who always had the right to keep and bear arms, were better than national armies.

It wasn’t a wrong assumption, it was a mistake. I didn’t wrongly assume that you couldn’t have automatic firearms (I own one), I only said it. It should have said “It’s the reason it’s a pain in the ass to have a fully automatic weapon.” But I was being short because the point I was making was about infringement which…

I’ll concede to your pedantry here if you’ll concede to ignoring the larger point - that fully automatic firearms are still limited, thus infringed upon, thus a valid point within the context of my argument.

That’s the general idea, as noted downthread. Contextualization, even if it’s not in a bigger monument.