Mutually assured destruction.
There's no path for Putin to use nuclear weapons that doesn't involve the utter annihilation of Russia. I would be willing to be that that will be a bright line for NATO, because once it's clear that Putin will use nuclear weapons when he's not getting what he wants, it's clear that there's no other choice that preserves independence other than retaliating with nuclear weapons.
Almost everything by Terry Pratchett. Just beware the last few books, where he was clearly suffering from Alzheimers. "Good Omens" (with Neil Gaiman) is a fantastic starting point. In the laster books, Pratchett was using his fantasy setting to dissect current social problems, usually very effectively; the 'boot theory' comes directly from Pratchett.
Everything by Douglas Adams.
Charles Stross' "The Laundry Files" series; how bureaucrats deal with Lovecraftian horrors.
Glen Cook's "Garrett P.I." series. Not really comedy, but has a strong element of the ridiculous, and plays off of the tropes established by Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler in a high fantasy setting.
Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. Like the whole thing. Can’t pick a favourite.
I would disagree with that. The last 3-4 books were... Not good. He was already showing signs of Alzheimers by then, and it was reflected in his writing. He died shortly after the final book, and, while it had flashes of his brilliance, it was clear that he was having a very hard time writing anything coherent by that time. Up to that point, he was fantastic. "Small Gods" is one of my favorite books about religion and belief, and he disguised it as comedic fantasy.
...Why should we be concerned about Putin saving face? This is his fuck up, and he was given ample opportunities to put the brakes on before he ever invaded.
The cougar is not shaved, and isn't wearing pants; I'm pretty sure that's not following the BYU dress code at all.
RIP Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
...And thus we see why line item vetoes are not a great idea. Yeah, it worked great here, but it has the potential to undercut every single bill passed by a legislature. It puts way too much power into the hands of the executive branch, because it essentially gives them the power to write laws.
I set up a version of LiberalGunOwners a week or two ago; as far as I'm concerned, you are more than welcome. As Operation Blazing Spear sez, armed queers bash back.
Well... Yes, it probably is. Because it's political speech, and because there's not a direct link to fraud or causal harm. See US v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. When Trump says that he's a stable genius, that's protected speech even though 180 degrees opposed to the truth.
You'll notice that e.g. what Trump's attorneys said in public was very, very different from what they said to courts; it's a criminal offense to lie to courts, but it's largely legal and protected to lie to the public for political ends.
That was why they specified good reason.
If we extend this thought experiment to a physical key, then that argument falls apart. A physical key is 'real or physical evidence', while a password (and apparently combinations?) ends up being considered 'testimonial', despite both serving the same function. While I may not be required to provide testimony against myself, I can be compelled to provide real of physical evidence. If, for instance, I have committed tax fraud, and my accountant has already told the IRS as much, but I have the only copies of the tax documents encrypted, I can be compelled to decrypt them, because the 'testimonial' value of the password is negligible since the gov't already knows that I have the fraudulent documents. But if they can't already demonstrate that they know what--roughly--the real evidence that's encrypted is, then no password for cops.
This seems inconsistent to me, since a password and a physical key serve the same function.
Obviously the problem is that there are too many knives in China, and it's too easy for civilians to get knives! No one needs a knife; the only purpose of a knife is to cut and stab. The only solution is to completely ban all knives in China.
...Or they could seriously address the social issues that lead to certain segments of their population committing this kind of atrocity.
Hmmm. I wonder where else that could be applied...?