The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least “techy” EVs I’ve seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

That’s all well and good, I agree with virtually all you said. It’s certainly the admins’ right to block or de-federate any community they want, based on risk or just because they feel like it, I have no issue with that. It’s simply my personal belief that discussion of crime is not a crime. Direct links to illegal content should not be allowed, but discussion about piracy in general should carry no more risk that learning about murder in a criminology class, which does not need to be banned just because it’s teaching people things they could in theory use to get away with murder.

I think we’re close to saying the same thing, I’m in total agreement that linking to illegal content should be banned, it’s the uneven enforcement of that principle across communities that I think is an issue. I know .world isn’t hosted in the US, so you don’t enjoy broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, but does anyone really think that discussing crime is itself a crime? If I say “here’s a scenario for how a group of people could rob a bank” what crime is that? If I say “hey I think there’s people dealing drugs on this street corner” what crime is that? And I can of course appreciate a host not wanting to expose themselves to any sort of legal liability, that’s their free choice, they own the server. I’m talking about, on principle, what’s wrong with allowing a community to exist so long as that community does not post or link to illegal content? That principle seems to work just fine for virtually every other topic but when it comes to discussion of filesharing, torrents, and the like, then suddenly the “don’t link to illegal content” principle isn’t good enough and it becomes “we must ban this entire concept for our own safety.” That’s the admins’ right and I have no issue if they want to do that, I just want to point out the glaring double standard between moderating communities so they don’t break the rules and banning communities so they don’t break the rules.

Linking to or posting content that’s illegal or in violation of copyright should not be allowed, but you don’t have to ban an entire community to do that, you just have to enforce the same rules that are in place for every other community on here. Maybe someone can explain this to me, but this seems equivalent to banning a cybersecurity community because encryption get used by bad actors sometimes, so discussion of staying anonymous online needs to be banned since information about staying anonymous online is “sharing the tools and techniques” that could be used in assisting criminal activity. Ditto for cryptocurrency, ditto for secure operating systems, ditto for drugs, guns, and any number of other things where community discussion is allowed but illegal activity is not. I understand the need to draw the line at actually sharing copyrighted content, but discussion of lockpicks or linking to sites that sell lockpicks is not equivalent to going around illegally picking locks, except it seems that is exactly the case when it comes to piracy but no other topics.

It’s just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don’t find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it’s almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today’s low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

I think they should really go all out and just text “is it cool if I deliver to you at the restaurant parking lot, I got a real busy night, just come on down and help a guy out?”

Inflation and low wages are caused by people asking door-to-door delivery drivers to actually deliver door-to-door? Guess I’ll go save the economy by hopping out my taxi before they actually get to the airport then to save those folks some time and gas and tamp down that pesky inflation!

I really hope app-based 3rd party food delivery just dies soon. The incentives are so fucked up and at cross purposes between the customers, companies, restaurants, and drivers. Like literally no one is getting a good deal out of it except the app itself. Support places that actually want to deliver enough to have their own drivers, and you’ll almost always have a smoother, faster, and more professional experience.

I get what you’re saying, but I think the whole idea that if you actually want your point-to-point delivery, which is the service you paid for, you’re making the driver “go out of their way” is the whole weird debate people in the thread are having. Like, the service is the service, or at least it should be, if it’s making doordash “go out of their way” to dash ya know, to my door…well that’s not the expectation these companies set with their customers I guess is all I have to say there.

Well its a good thing no famous or political person has ever been on trial then because obviously no jury on earth could handle that fairly if it ever were to happen. I think voir dire exists mainly to make sure that folks who think like that never make it on to juries. Just because some people couldn’t render an impartial verdict on a politician they had an opinion of doesn’t make it impossible for lawyers and judges to find a jury capable of doing so. People like that exist, and lawyers find them for trials all the time, I promise you.

Absolutely right. “Impartial” doesn’t mean you’ve never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don’t live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven’t heard or believe things about what they’ve done. It means just what you said, that whoever is picked will be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and make a decision based on that evidence. Apparently a huge number of people believe this is functionally impossible for humans to do, which is pretty sad if you’ve let your politics overwhelm your reason to such a degree that you think no one else can be objective either.

It’s a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge “the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can’t get a fair trial!!” Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as “too famous” for justice, there is no such thing as “too infamous” for justice. And there is no such thing as “the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I’ve done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts.”

Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial all the time. Could you imagine if “I’m too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers” was a defense?