The number of littered bottles, with or without a cap, is greater than the number of loose caps,
That smells like survivorship bias. Your dataset is skewed by loose caps being way harder to find due to being smaller. It stands to reason that all those bottles without a cap you find will have also had their cap littered in the vast majority of cases.
All good points if true. However I will say that to my limited understanding a crime under a specific law having been pardoned, that same law can then not be used to prosecute this crime anymore. Meaning states would have to find a different (preferably state) law under which the same offence is punishable.
And that is all disregarding other issues like packed courts, republican controlled states, the vagueness of double-jeopardy in this regard, and the general chilling effect a presidential pardon would have on prosecutors to even press charges in the first place.
The loss of benefits is easily circumvented by promising a golden parachute along with the pardon, so I could still see a lot of fanatics doing the crime "for country and freedom" or whatever they tell themselves.
Overall this seems like a potentially dangerous erosion of checks and balances that is easily abused when put in the wrong hands. As the dissenting opinions in the ruling openly state.
Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.
IANAL, but there is the presidential power to pardon. So the president could in theory give an illegal order (as long as it is an official act they have immunity) and promise a presidential pardon once the order is fulfilled (therefore extending immunity to the perpetrator). Meaning the president can entirely circumvent the UCMJ.
Linux users can’t even agree [...] so how am I supposed to pick one with any confidence?
Easy. You make a post like the OP, count the positive mentions of distros in the comments, and bam, you have your distro of choice. It's called the Linux newbie roulette and works kind of like the magic hat in Harry Potter that sorts you into your house.
Well given that the Jaffa operate strategically pretty much the same as the Goa'uld their main air defence is what you already showed in your OP: the glider. And beyond that any other Goa'uld ship they can get their hands on.
But yeah, in the show we see MANPADs, air-to-air missiles, and even an unguided rocket launcher being successfully used against gliders and other small to medium ships. So deploying them Patriot batteries to Dakara would have been a good idea probably. Also those AA railguns (?) that get used at the battle for Atlantis at the end of season 1.
Ancient drones would of course be king if you could get a production chain for ammunition and a launch platform going, those things just shred any Goa'uld ship (or other ship for that matter) if you have enough. In lieu of that Asgard/Tolan energy weapons should be the most effective air defence, save for the nastier opponents smart enough to adapt shields on the fly like Replicators and whatnot.
Well I'm no expert on Christianity, but apparently this theology graduate here agrees with you:
So, I think it’s pretty stupid to argue whether “convicted felon” should be in his opening lede line for Wikipedia.
True though that may be, I don't think it's surprising that this would happen, and since making the post I have been falling down a rabbit hole of finding out how Wikipedia is handling situations like this, partly through taking more than a glancing look at the talk pages for the first time ever, and it's fascinating.
Currently my deepest point of descent is this sub-thread on the Admin board about the "consensus" boxes on top of talk pages being an undocumented and unapproved feature.
Not yet, but you probably will be able to in the future.
Right so WhatsApp and messenger are gatekeepers and they must allow interoperation with who anyone who wants to ie me running my own signal instance?
There are several stipulations on interoperability in the new regulation (Ctrl+F "interop"). To my understanding it is stipulated that they have to make interoperability possible for certain third parties, but how to go about this is not exactly specified on a technical level - meaning the specific way to implement this is left to the gatekeeper. So your Signal server may or may not be able to depending on how exactly they go about this.
They also need to interoperate with signal hence if a works with b and c works with a why wouldn’t b work with c?
No they need to enable interoperability period. Says nothing about Signal (the software) per se. Meta has announced they plan on implementing it based on the Signal protocol (not Signal messenger software, not Signal server software).
Cos if thats hoe it works or if im not allowed to interoperate with WhatsApp or messenger in the first place then this juat seems like its handing the monopoly away from the companies to the government and giving the people fuck all.
To my knowledge the aim of the regulation is exactly that, to allow anybody interoperability with these "core platform services". The status quo is that the regulations has been announced by the EU, it has gone into effect, and Meta has announced how they will implement interoperability to comply. Once the implementation is available and then found lacking in regard to the regulation it would be up to the affected third party to sue Meta over it.
Any link is a download... I mean that's what happens even when the link target is displayed in the browser, the browser downloads a file (actually a collection of files usually) that is then interpreted and displayed in the browser. A download of data still happens though.