because then things would just shut down… The poor suckers that don’t use adblockers are what pay the bandwidth and hosting costs for those of us that do. If it becomes the default, things would either shutdown or go paywall.

I mean the concept is pretty simple, all they have to do is make whatever the content it is not play without the verification.

Now I do have to say, it does come down to what is the system we do want? We can agree we don’t want intrusive ads. We can say that the paid for services are too expensive. But at the end of the day when we refuse to pay for the content, and then bypass the ads, we do leave content creation in a rough spot. We’ve kind of reached a point where we need a new system. Yet all we seem to do is try and find ways to break the existing one.

I mean I guess a food bank would have food already as well… They are both one time use consumable supplies so, whether they have them or not, they are going to have to resupply at some point.

Honestly I think the biggest issue in law enforcement in general… is human testimony has this kind of weight to begin with. This guy was convicted of murder… with apparently the entirety of the evidence against him being “a criminal said he did it”.

Even if the penalty was JUST 20 years in prison, and death penalty wasn’t on the table, that’s so wrong to me. 1 man’s word is not a reliable way to confirm anything. People have garbage memories, and can lie.

Agreed we can’t tell which way the flip is… and that’s kind of the crux of the issue… The evidence was unverifiable from day 1. So even if the death penalty was never on the table… this man had nearly 30 years of his life taken away… on literally one persons word, to top it off that one person was confirmed to be a criminal.

So yeah there’s 2 major giant red flags to our justice system in this case. 1. The terribleness of death penalty to begin with. But 2. the idea of a single eye witnesses word having the ability to take decades of someone’s life away,

Umm… is this post edited or something. I’m seeing

Donating canned goods to food pantries is like donating needles and syringes to a cancer research organization

I don’t see the word “used” in it. So, it sounds like he’s saying donating medical supplies to an organization that does medical research?

To which I’d say yes both seem helpful to an organization that helps people in need.

The point isn’t that not voting for harris is really an option. the point is to actually encourage the party to do the right thing. Least so far the “uncommited” group has been on the elections that dont’ matter, the polls etc…

Point is you need some level of power. You don’t exactly have a bargaining position when you walk up to the officials and say “stop killing people or I’ll vote for you anyway”. I mean I get it, we live in a fake democracy… we’re given the choice of someone who’s bad on the issue, or someone who’s worse on the issue.

Honestly on the whole I applaud Harris, she’s actually at least paying lip service to hearing people out, and pushing for a cease fire. It’s the least you can do, but it’s more than biden did, and there’s at least an inkling of hope she’ll actually follow it up.

I mean that’s kind of crazy hyperbole… RFK Jr, is still a crazy who only appeals to a tiny portion of people. Biden would continue to lose ground to trump, but I imagine he’d have probably held the popular vote, but remain losing in all the states that matter for the election.

Or turned off the monitor and turned it back on.

Is there an actual group pushing for that? (I’m pretty sure I remember a decade or so back there being an arm the homeless group, that put out santa’s etc… though didn’t actually accept donations. (Their actual goal was common sense gun laws, and they knew the people who are pro-gun would argue strongly against it shooting their own pro-gun arguements in the foot).