brian

While in principle, I don't disagree. If you're impaired, you shouldn't drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.

However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.

Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal "no" to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It's the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.

It's also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.

I mean, he was speaking at the Black Conservative Federation. It's sorta relevant just given the venue.

If it want a really good 4X game

Is this for real?

There's no reason that guilt would be absent from helpinghelp a specific person in need (like your struggling mother example). Plenty of people feel guilty taking handouts and will outright refuse help when they might need it.

As for the drive thru thing, I think you might be talking about something different than what I've seen/done, which is just paying for your own meal and the people behind you. There isn't any expectation for them to continue some chain, and in many ways it's a bit of an empty gesture (they are just taking that first person's goodwill and passing it to the next in line).

My interpretation of paying it forward is the premise of receiving something when you're in need, then, when you're able, to give something back. Not to the one who helped you, as that would be repaying a debt.

not a typo

puplic

This amuses me

I would imagine the blanket statute to refer to is something like reckless endangerment, or perhaps more likely would be the firearms themselves being unlicensed.

Additionally, if I shot at someone who was wearing a bulletproof vest, it still would be attempted murder. If they asked me to shoot at them, it still would continue to be attempted murder ("no judge, they asked me to shoot them and I missed").

I mean, even if someone explicitly asked for you to kill them, in writing, notarized, and all that legal jazz, then you're getting into the realm of assisted suicide and that lovely grey area of morality. Though I believe it's still illegal throughout the US.

I guess I'm out of the loop. I'm definitely biased, but I would be very surprised to hear that Jack Black did anything that would warrant my skepticism.

water that is wet

Oh geez, better be careful making controversial statements like that.

I'm a bit miffed as to why he just rattled off those things at the end. Are those "sources" supporting his statement? Or saying they're complicit? Or is he just giving shoutouts to his buddies?

Curious as to why that would be the case. Unless people are starting videos, letting them buffer, then reloading and doing it again.

It should be the same amount of bandwidth, otherwise, right?

Why is the media bias bot so disliked?

Connections 
Puzzle #440

🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟪🟪🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦