Decriminalizing possession is one thing, but if the selling market is still illegal you really haven't done much other than keeping the jails a bit less full
> Addicts literally carry around fent testing kits so they can _avoid_ this synthetic opioid.
Choosy addicts choose...is something I never thought I'd read. I'd suggest they weren't addicting right if they are choosy. When you can find your fix of choice, you just fix with what's available.
If your comment were accurate, fent sales would plummet and the problem would fix itself. This is clearly not the case.
None of what you've described is how any of this works in the real world.
There's an entire world of behaviour from a seller's perspective for every drug and an entire set of behaviour from a user's perspective. They match closely to how 'legal' alcohol production and consumption works. Biggest profits are from the biggest addicts of alcohol and their suppliers are all on the stock exchange for everyone to see. Beer almost never kills anyone, same with the production from large reputable companies. but if you find a great deal of homemade hard liqour make sure you test for ethanol and methanol. Thats simply how addicts die no matter the product they are using.
'some white powder' could literally be anything and everything. Idiots could cut it up wrong and what previously got you high just fine might potentially be a lethal dose right in front of you in the form of a powdery white line with no way to tell. Theres the mostly harmless chemicals used to reduce dose to cut the dealer more profit but could still not be mixed properly so new users wouldn't be able to notice. Then theres the nitazenes and other stuff that most tests only detect 'presence of' but not the dose so you would still have to throw everything out even though it might be mixed and dosed properly. And then theres the less addicted group who doesn't even bother with anything ever and only wants the pure stuff in large single batches in order to test fully and properly. Those people never get screwed over because thats what they pay for.
What is Googs going to do, leave money on the table?
And if Googs doesn't do it, someone else will, so it might as well be them that makes money for their shareholders. Technically, couldn't activist shareholders come together and claim by not going after this market the leadership should be replaced for those that would? After all, share prices is the only metric that matters
I think the poster is applying your statement about leaving money on the table. Structural requirements to not leave money on the table is a Moloch results that leads to the deterioration of the system into being just stealing as much shit as possible.
What are you are saying is: optimising for commercial success is incompatible with morality. The conclusion is that publicly traded megacorps must inevitably trend towards amorality.
So yes, they aren't "evil" but I think amorality is the closest thing to "evil" that actually exists in the real world.
I don't buy that argument. There are things Google does better than competitors, so them doing an evil thing means they are doing it better. Also, they could be spending those resources on something less evil.
Remember when the other AI companies wanted ClosedAI to stop "for humanity's sake" when all it meant was for them the catch up? None of these companies are "good". They all know that as soon as one company does it, they all must follow, so why not lead?
The lag between OTA broadcast and cable/streaming is insanely bad. We had several screens tuned in to World Cup, and the group watching the OTA broadcast would cheer 15-20 seconds before the cable/streaming screens would. Knowing it exists is one thing, but seeing it in that manner puts it on a whole other level
We used to use that to our advantage; put the radio on the ballgame, put the TV on MLB.TV, and if something exciting happened we could get over to the TV in time to watch it.
What's annoying is when you get an out-of-bound popup while you're trying to watch the game! I don't want to know that "opposing team hit a grand slam" whilst I'm watching the pitcher at 3-2 and bases loaded.
Where do you come up with 3 seconds when I said 15-20 seconds later?
The World Cup I was referring to was the infamous match where a player received 3 yellow cards, and the delay from cable was so long that the OTA viewers (a Spanish language broadcast) had time to come running in to ask if that made any more sense in English. But the English broadcast had not yet seen it.
It was just bizarre. It's negative because it's annoying AF. But since you want to minimize things by making up numbers to attempt to make a point instead of accepting the provided information, there's no way we'll ever see eye to eye.
3 seconds would not matter to me. As it is, latencies are much higher and afford time for my family group chat (WhatsApp) to "spoil" events that I have not yet seen. I don't want to ignore the chat. :(
If you know how to program, then I agree and part of why I don't see the point. If you don't know how to program, than the prompt isn't much different than providing the specs/requirements to a programmer.
In comparison to other countries where coups are almost normal, for a country that has not come close to that, this was a big shock to the accepted normal. When other countries like Syria overthrow their leaders, you almost go "of course they did", but to see anything approaching that in the US is totally out of left field. That's what makes it a bigger deal than what you want think.
> It feels like similar things happen in other govt buildings in the USA all the time
This is exactly how public perception will instantly normalize things if Trump ever gets the power to throw political enemies out of windows. "Oh this stuff happens all the time. Politicians have always been killing their enemies. Look up Seth Rich and Whitewater. Don't be so naive."
It will happen in the blink of an eye. And then it really is over.
there's a whole lot to unpack here, and none of it is good. at the end of the day, you can consider Musk an outside contractor. how exactly is that treason? also, in which part of the constitution does it say anything about the federal payment system? that's not an article I'm familiar
The power of the purse is the authority of the United States Congress to levy taxes and control government spending. It's a key part of the separation of powers in the Constitution and a check on the executive branch. If Musk actually stops any payment that was authorized by Congress then he is violating the Constitution.
DOGE also has no legitimate need or legal right to access the federal payment system. He is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and should be arrested and put on trial along with any other DOGE employee who has accessed the federal payment system.
reply