You make a convincing point

Well, ideally the companies would crash before the chips are actually used, but I’d rather have cheap, used chips than my also used, but older and worse chips or new ones I can’t afford.

Maybe if the companies that secured dibs on the chips crash and have to fold, those chips will end up on the consumer market after all

Couldn’t the newly raised tax revenue be used by the government to prop up the economy and mitigate the effects? I’m admittedly not particularly familiar with the effects you mention, nor how they came about.

Depending on the platform the bot is implemented with, there are emoji-regex packages that can at least match the characters, even if counting them might be difficult. I believe python 3.3+ has support for counting displayed characters, so title[:3]="ich" and len(title[3:-3]) in (1, 2, 3) and title[-3:]="iel" should work for the length check.

A law that’s not enforced is a suggestion

I think a dash of machine oil just rounds out the flavour really nice, but I haven’t been able to find authentic saltwater fish feces to try yet, and the artificial farm fish shit just doesn’t do it for me.

If both were equally bad, then a US takeover would still come with a lot of violence and upheaval for absolutely no gain. If their relationship with the Danish has more or less settled into some arrangement (however fair or unfair it may be), uprooting it all and forcing them to readjust to their new overlords would just be a waste.

In theory, Executive Orders are supposed to be a quick response to emergent situations. Even at its best, Congress is slow and cumbersome, as an assembly of many people tends to be, and as an organ of deliberate legislation should be. Until it can provide a more permanent solution to an urgent problem, the president is empowered to order temporary ones. It’s a good idea. In theory.

The critical point is that this power is supposed to be checked by Courts and Congress. A president that abuses that power should be stripped of it. Unlawful orders should be blocked. SCOTUS could fast-track an urgent case. In theory.

In practice, that’s where the system is falling apart. SCOTUS has long been stacked with partial judges, while states have gerrymandered and indoctrinated to the point where their representatives are no longer beholden to the approval of the people. With SCOTUS and Congress both complicit, those checks no longer actually check.

This isn’t a sudden exploitation of a loophole that has been there from the start. It’s the rotten fruit of decades of vile labour. It’s an ulcer that has been festering for decades and is now rupturing.

I don’t wonder about executive orders functioning as they should (though I find it depressing), I wonder how the hell it got this far, both in the US and in other countries, that it takes an almost cartoonishly petty madman to rip it wide open before it becomes visible, and I still have to argue with family about conservatism being a deeply anti-democratic and anti-liberty movement.

How is it still not obvious that this isn’t the work of one man, but the culmination of many people working together to prepare the stage for his grotesque, narcissistic power play?

The most depressing part is that everyone around him just goes along with this shit. His orders have no weight unless someone executes them.

But does he know they’re French too?

Probably depends on the translation, but they could have mentioned wich translation they’re using.

Ich hab mich ne Zeit lang geschämt, obszöne Witze witzig zu finden, aber irgendwann hab ich eingesehen, dass das halt mein Geschmack ist. Seitdem ist Scham in dem Kontext nur noch ein Euphemismus 😉

Viel Erfolg! Manche Blumen brauchen Zeit zum blühen, aber ich wünsch dir, dass du dafür umso schöner aufblühen kannst!

Worte sind billig, hab ich tausende übrig. Ich hab halt weder das Amt noch das Mandat, sie auch umzusetzen.

Hoffen wir, dass er mehr Integrität beweist als er das bisher hat, oder zumindest genug Gegenwind aus den eigenen Kreisen kriegt, dass auch die Schmiergelder nichts mehr helfen.

Trotzdem zumindest gut, das mal auszusprechen. Schweigen ist noch wertloser.

Was darf Satire?

Ich würde ja behaupten “alles”, aber da steht die Realität ihr offenbar in nichts nach. Vielleicht müsste Satire stattdessen wieder in Richtung Normalität driften um darüber zu scherzen, wie wahnsinnig doch alles geworden ist wenn selbst (ehemals) normale Dinge absurd wirken.

Dass sich da wirklich niemand zu irgendeiner (!) Art von Umsturz berufen fühlt ist echt noch das Skurrilste an der ganzen Sache.

Ich glaube nicht, dass wir von eventuellen Plänen mitbekämen. Dazu passen aber auch die Lyrics von Icon For Hire - Make A Move:

Everybody’s so scared
We don’t wanna go there
We don’t wanna make a move
We got all our lives to lose
Screaming in the dark while
We just play our parts out
And I play along
Cause I don’t know what’s going on

Ich will doch auch nur mit meinem Leben weitermachen und versuchen das Beste rauszuholen. Ich will doch auch nicht mein Leben aufs Spiel setzen, vor allem wenn ich mir nicht sicher bin, ob ich alleine dastünde. Unterwerfung gegenüber einer mächtigen Bedrohung ist letztlich Selbsterhaltung, und das finde ich nicht prinzipiell verwerflich. Vielmehr finde ich es bemerkens- und lobenswert, wenn jemand das überwindet und es doch riskiert.

Es gibt ja mancherorts schon heftig Proteste und Widerstand gegen die Staatsmiliz, und ich hoffe, dass das um sich greift. Je verzweifelter Leute werden, je größer ihre Misere, desto attraktiver wird auch die Gegenwehr. Je mehr Leute schon mitmachen, desto geringer die Angst, alleine zu sein. Aber wer macht den Anfang?

Natürlich würde ich mir da einen friedlichen Wandel wünschen, aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob eine friedliche Einigung mit Menschen solch fundamental anderer Grundeinstellung möglich ist. Einzelne Gewaltakte werden da aber nicht reichen, das müsste eine fundamentale “unfuck our shit” Bewegung sein.

Ach, für ein bisschen Geld blickt er bestimmt darüber hinweg. Ihn stört ja, dass die EU ihm nicht brav den Hof macht und untertänigst gehorcht; Tribut zu zahlen um in seinen Club zu kommen wäre aber genau das.

For one, the framers weren’t entirely exemplary, but others have pointed that out, so I’ll try a moderating argument:

Even a genius at that time couldn’t have really comprehended or predicted the impact of technological development. I don’t just mean this in a “hindsight is 20/20” or “technology is developing faster” sense, but rather that the study of history itself wasn’t quite as developed as it is today.

Modern communication, investigation, restoration methods have massively increased the wealth of sources any given scholar has access to. Lacking that, it’s far easier to fill gaps in knowledge with assumptions from your own experience or what bits of knowledge you do have and assume that some things have been constant for a long time. Conversely, it’s hard to imagine those things might change. The best you can do is observe contemporary developments, attempt to guess where they might lead and try to take precaution against the most likely or most dangerous possibilities.

One such precaution is to create a system whereby the many can stop individuals from abusing their power, strip them of that power and do all of that with due process and careful deliberation. But then, the speed at which the powerful could do damage was also more limited.

As technology changes, so too should systems of government. What worked two centuries ago just isn’t viable any more. Many developments in the last century would probably have prompted different decisions by well-meaning, educated and intelligent people.

I don’t think the breakage of a system that failed to adapt is the fault of the people who first penned it. They included tools to change that system itself with what seemed like a reasonable hurdle at the time. They can hardly be blamed if those tools aren’t used (or at least not for good).

In conclusion: it’s possible that the framers had the best intentions, considerable intelligence and a high level of education for their time, and still couldn’t have done better.

That isn’t to say they must have had those purest intentions or been that smart. Hell, just the disconnect between advocating for liberty and holding slaves points to a significantly different understanding of liberty. I could write a whole paragraph here, but my core point is that the system of checks and balances breaking isn’t (just) the error of a few elite politicians, underestimating the potential for corruption, but rather of many generations of politicians eroding what protections those politicians might have put in place.

If you believed in the power of the people, their desire to be free, just came out of a bloody struggle to be free of one corrupt tyrant and unwittinglu projected your own level of education on them, would you realistically foresee that they’d vote this stain into office not once, but twice, and that all the other representatives would stand by idly while their own power is being undermined?

Sorry, I just heard lawnmower, what do I do with all this blood now?

Dann trotzdem zumindest Danke für den Hinweis