I mean they’re not mutally exclusive. Fines could, and should scale with both.

I’ve always said that the fines for moving traffic violations need to be scaled to the weight of the vehicle.

It’s insane that going 20 over the limit on a 250kg moped gets you the exact same fine as doing it in a 4 ton F-450.

The whole scenario is already a grandfather paradox. If he stopped the plague, he wouldn’t have been sent back to stop the plague. If that doesn’t break the space time continuum neither will leaving them behind.

Next time, make sure to bring the person paying you with you to prove you did it.

You can also threaten to leave them behind if they refuse to pay.

Trump and the GOP have repeatedly decried and called to limit ALL immigration from third world countries. This guy 100% knew and wanted that to happen. He just thought it would only affect NEW immigrants, not his wife.

The admin has been arresting and deporting legal immigrants and citizens since they came into power. If this guy had given half a shit about that happening, he would’ve already been banned from r/Trump.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

There’s two sides to this, both of which are equally true.

1. Cars are a fuck ton more dangerous than most people realise/think

2. Violent crime is a whole lot LESS common/of a risk than sensationalist media makes most people assume.

Technically, you’re just describing any DOS attack. The specific characteristic of a DDOS attack is the distribution, i.e. using a botnet to send traffic from thousands of different ip addresses simoultaneously, which makes DDOS attacks far harder to block than a simple DOS attack, originating from a single IP.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

If you’re this bent on defending this mysoginstic and sexist crap, then you’re a sexist mysoginst not worth talking too. Enjoy being blocked.

Yes. And the fathers are equally capable of saying no. And the men themselves are equally capable of not being cunts.

There’s 3 people involved here, 2 of which are men, and this guy specifically singles out the the one woman, and blames her. That’s sexist and mysoginstic.

“When women are bad, it’s their fault. When men are bad, it’s their mother’s fault” is an objectively sexist and shitty stance to have.

If you wanna blame the parents, blame BOTH. Singling out the mother is mysoginstic.

Those men have fathers too, and yet you specifically blame the mothers. That’s misogyny.

You do realise that reproduction involves more than just the mother, right ?

Imagine being so sexist that you even blame women for a group men of being cunts.

Yes it should change sentencing, because the primary goal of the justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment, and there are absolutely people who have commited murder and are capable of being fully rehabilitated, and those that can’t, and they should not be sentenced the same.

Or do you seriously think, for example, people who end up murdering their abusers out of revenge or desperation should actually receive the same punishment as someone who murders a random person purely because they hate something about their identity, or an abuser who murder their victim ?

It’s a way to take the severity of the motivation into account when sentencing.

Someone who committed murder could have done so under all sorts of mitigating circumstances, classifying the crime as a hate crime speaks to the horrificly unjustifiable motivation, and is indicative of someone who should be less likely, or ineligible for parole.

Sure, we could just keep calling it murder, and take those things into account anyway, but I think it’s ultimately good to have these distinctions, and there’s plenty of other similar cases where we do distinguish between crimes based on intent, rather than outcome, particularly for crimes against people (you may, for example, apply your exact logic to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or even murder and manslaughter. It’s not like a murder 1 victim is any better off for their killers crime being called murder instead of manslaughter)

Doesn’t have to be cling film. Any flexible, non toxic, non permeable sheet will do. You could cut a square out of bag of chips, and fold it up. Or cut a corner out of those emergency blankets, if you have a spare. They’re impermeable to liquid, and ultra thin and lightweight.

You should include some flexible plastic, like cling film. In case you have to bandage an arterial or jugular wound, you need something that is impermeable to stop the bleeding. In case of jugular wounds, it’s also necessary to stop the heart from sucking air in through the dry end of the severed vein, which could make a bad situation worse.

Given how famously unreliable AI detectors are, and how often they FP, I’d say there’s a decent chance a few students just lied, and falsely “admitted” to using AI, because they didn’t want to risk flunking the class over a FP.

US Europe Round trips in the 70’s/80’s would you run you between 600 and 1000$. That would be 2300-4000$ adjusted for inflation, and could be as expensive as 1000-1500$ (up to 6000$), so I don’t really care what you think, facts disagree with you.

(Also, round trip tickets are ALWAYS cheaper than two individual one way trips, so you can’t just double to price of a one way ticket to arrive at that of a roundtrip)

You can definitely get business class seats in that price range, and if you spend some time comparing prices, I’m sure you could find first class seats in a similar range. And be real, if you’re spending 3-4 thousand dollars JUST on the plane ticket, an extra couple hundred bucks won’t kill you.

And of course segregating classes is going to make upper classes more expensive. That’s the whole point. Instead of distributing the costs of the service and seats across EVERYONE, only those who actually choose to use them pay for them. They’re more expensive because the passengers who don’t want those amenities are no longer bein forced to subsidize them for those that do.

And for comparison, an economy class round trip would cost less than a 1000$ if you book a few months advance. That’s less than half the price injusted for inflation vs. the 70’s/80’s.

And finally, believe it or not, Economy class is barely, if at all profitable for airlines. They make most of their profit from service upgrades, higher classes, shipping cargo and, in the U.S., credit card rewards programs.

If you want planes to all have even just premium economy levels space, airlines would NEED to increase ticket prices by 20-30% just to stop from selling at a loss.