testfactor

Do they still make Warheads? Those were the sour candy when I was growing up, lol.

I might grant questionable, but not super.

I think a large part of why it was a 9-0 decision was that it's not speech to run a social media site. It's commerce, plain as day. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce full stop. The fact that China is using that platform to spread misinformation, and then claiming that stopping them from doing so is a 1A violation is just a red herring.

"Money is speech" just means rich people can donate all the money they want to a politician. Not that you can run an otherwise unlawful business because "money is speech and free speech is a thing!"

How is it any different than the Russian propaganda campaign to get Trump elected? Or was that something you were fine with as well?

When you let a foreign government run an active psyop campaign against your citizens, you're just begging for instability and chaos.

I mean, yeah? Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are inalienable rights, sure, but they're generally intended to extend to citizens. Not foreign governments.

There's a big difference between a Chinese citizen here on a green card going around saying they love China and a company running an active misinformation campaign on orders from their government.

It's no different than how the government tried to crack down on Russian election interference. Turns out, hostile nations running psyops campaigns is bad.

Well, the TikTok lawyers kinda said the quiet part out loud during their SCOTUS brief:

Mr. Francisco contended that the government in a free country “has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to keep Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” That is targeting the content of speech, which the First Amendment does not permit, he said.

It's not a great look for your app when your argument before the Supreme Court is "yeah, we're a propaganda machine for a hostile foreign power, but free speech says you can't stop us. Neener neener."

Why do they need to be able to reproduce for their sex to count?

They keep happening, even if they don't have children. It's just a fairly common mutation.

There are plenty of genetic conditions that aren't hereditary. Like Down's Syndrome for instance.

See, I think you may just need a dictionary. Binary means there is one or the other, there is no "both or neither" option. If you have more than a forced "either/or" choice, then by definition it's not binary.

True, false, and neither isn't binary by any definition you'll find in any dictionary.

In addition to the other listed reasons, going open source is an extra step.

The code has to be compiled to run on your system (if it's written in a non-interpreted language, which a huge portion of software is).

You can't just run the source code on your computer. And getting your customer's computer to compile the source code itself would require a massive amount of overhead.

So, to distribute your software, you're always almost always going to distribute an already compiled version, and you'd have to choose to give the customer the uncompiled version as just a separate thing on the side. And there's no real reason to do that for most companies.

To your last part, a judge can't JNOV if the verdict was not guilty.

From that wiki :

A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

So if they jury annul, that's the end, and there's really no recourse for the state at that point.

Agree with everything else you said though.

It most likely would just be a significant portion. Once a place is hit by fire, it takes a couple of years to be as susceptible again. Or, if it's not been a recent hit, the odds of any individual place being hit in a given year is probably sub 25%.

So the insurance company would probably charge something like 20-25% of the value. Which, yes, is hugely unaffordable for 99.9% of people. But if you're super rich is probably still worth it, as the reason the price is that high is that there's a pretty good chance your house burns down in the next year or two, so you would come out ahead in that scenario.

Then again, once you're rich enough to afford that level of insurance premium, you're probably rich enough to just float the risk yourself. So yeah, probably pretty worthless across the board, even at levels fairly significantly lower than 100% of the replacement cost.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/proof-of-divisibility-rules/

The 7 and 13 rules are pretty cool too.

Yep. If the sun of the numbers is divisible by 3, the number is divisible by three.

Works great for 6 too, as if it's divisible by 3 and even, the number is divisible by 6.

And 9 is the same thing, but the sum has to be divisible by 9 (e.g. 12384 is divisible by 9 because the sum of the digits is 18, which is divisible by 9)

There's also good rules for 4 and 8 as well. If the last 2 digits are divisible by 4, the whole number is (e.g. 127924 is divisible by 4 because 24 is) and if the last 3 numbers are divisible by 8, the whole number is (e.g. 12709832 is divisible by 8 because 832 is.)