As someone who’s used android literally since the first android phone was released, it’s a massive disappointment how locked down and enshittified it’s become.

At best you’d end up with the Cuban missile crisis in reverse.

The lower level firmware, your pc is probably doing the same

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/intels-management-engine-security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it

https://news.softpedia.com/news/intel-x86-cpus-come-with-a-secret-backdoor-that-nobody-can-touch-or-disable-505347.shtml

Linus is kinda infamous for being a dick.

Literally just focus on making firefox better. Which isn’t even an option on the survey.

St Peter gets laid off, and unionises the other saints to go on strike.

I always assumed it was simply a matter of perspective. E.g. someone leaving the USA for the UK is an expat to the USA but an immigrant to the UK.

Well now I’m going to have to use it even more.

The term isn’t quite as specific as you want, but it sounds like a positive feedback loop? (the linked article even gives ponzi schemes as an example)

Sunk cost fallacy?

This election was crazier than the last election. On the other hand it will be less crazy than the next election.

Eugene Debs ran for president while in federal prison for sedition, so it’s not really unprecedented.

So you didn’t vote for anyone for president?

I’m not American, if I was I would have voted for Stein though.

Not voting for someone who is aiding and abetting genocide is morally correct, it’s not complicated.

If genocide isn’t a red line for you, what is?

But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy

That already happened in Bush v. Gore

To give you an actual answer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat

The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]

The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, “[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.

In reviewing the lower court’s analysis of the case, the Court noted that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”[3] The Court recognized that “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” political debate can at times be characterized by “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” In light of the context of Watts’ statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” than a “true threat.”[3]

That’s a stepladder

Removed by mod

Needs more stance

• Not everyone has the same prescription for both eyes.
• This doesn’t help with astigmatism.