Oh, infuriating, certainly.

That’s amazing is it? That they (grudgingly) take care of us while we are doing what they want, and hurt us until we fall in line when we don’t?

Seems a bar has been lowered while I wasn’t looking.

I’ll make an exception for uploaders.

That’s because they banned the accounts.

Anyone who has an account on pornhub deserves their ban.

RFK Junior is 71 years old. That’s not your shining example of “eventually gong to get himself killed.”

Yea, that’s part of why I don’t know for sure if they make cars the way the guy at the top of this thread is describing.

Can’t speak to “required.” But I know it used to be done.

I think what he wants is the front turn signal to wrap around the front, so I can see the left signal from the right quarter.

I’m not aware that this is not the case, but I don’t know that I would have noticed if it was not.

Such things have to be wire guided, or autonomous. Subs have really good wire deployment systems, so it’s not something out of the question, but water blocks radio signals quite effectively.

I mean, that’s like claiming that he lied repeatedly and vociferously that jumping in the pool will not lead to getting wet. There is no way to believe that lie aside from deep, deep ignorance.

Your reading comprehension needs work.

That seems incredibly unlikely.

Once again, I long for precidented times.

I didn’t say otherwise.

I have no comment on weather the Korean War was a genocide. I don’t know enough about the topic.

Your statement, that I replied to, was “Nothing in the community rule say that the content should be about established facts”

That is what I understand. But that is not meaningful in this case. Speaking purely hypothetically, there is no reason that the US could not take advantage of North Korean aggression as an excuse to commit the genocide that the article accuses them of.

Should we be learning things that aren’t true?

The cultural relationship with time is more important than its absolute measurement.

This was the statement at the top of this discussion. It values the local concept of what time should be over an objective measurement of what time is.

The proposed change wouldn’t cause much of a problem. But the idea under the statement I quoted would.

that is such a small edge case that it’s not necessary to talk about them

Did you manage to overlook this point?

In general, stay out of the ducking way.

And in both cases, missing the point. Categorize based on the chemistry, not the source of the chemical.