It's the same vein as criminals using cash vs Bitcoin; both can hide crime, but one is way easier to scale up.

The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.

(I agree with the spirit, just calling out that there are going to be edge cases galore with a scenario like this)

In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.

In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.

> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?

Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.

It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that as improper socially.

Just a heads up but concur means "agree", not "believe"

This is not at all common and hasn't been for a few hundred years.

(That said, your point about wealthy people making big donations as a PR move is definitely as prevalent as it ever was)

(Big fan of version pinning in basically every context, too)

In both cases, the solution is similar: try to restrict access to vital systems only to those you trust,so that you have less need to audit their every move.

Your system administrators can access the server room, but the on-site barista can't. Your HTTP server is trusted enough to run in prod, but a color-formatting library isn't.

I think this is a good argument for reducing your dependency count as much as possible, and keeping them to well-known and trustworthy (security-wise) creators.

"Not-invented-here" syndrome is counterproductive if you can trust all authors, but in an uncontrolled or unaudited ecosystem it's actually pretty sensible.

For instance, car accidents are an incredibly prevalent cause of death, and even though we had methods of transport before (and in many places, better methods even today), the convenience and ease that cars bring is largely deemed to outweigh the risks in most places (though note that there has been a constant drive toward reducing those risks, without giving up cars altogether).

A meaningful downside to something is an important perspective, but arguments about upsides are also always worth considering.

For the pans in particular, consider that alternative cooking methods may have required much more manual effort to perform or clean, or that they were more difficult to exercise well. There are tradeoffs around people cooking at home less if cooking is less convenient, up against the risks of harm from the things that make cooking convenient.

Not saying one side or the other is right, but the arguments are basically always worth at least considering, even in the face of really strong counter-arguments.

1. Fortnite doesn't have an iPhone app, so if I switch to iOS I can't play with my friends

2. My friends only play Fortnite, so I can't play with them unless I play Fortnite.

3. My skins can't be used on Roblox.

4. I lose access to all my custom worlds

5. Other game engines don't work for building Fortnite custom worlds, I have to use Unreal.

It feels like a certain amount of lock-in is expected just from network effects of products, no?

For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)

Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.

Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)

For public schools, you have school districts. For infrastructure you have utility districts. For libraries and parks and amenities, you have municipal government.

For student loans, though, the individual students are the ones making the decisions. The taxpayer is subsidizing students pursuing highly employable careers like engineering or medical science, but is equally subsidizing students pursuing unemployable degrees like cultural studies or literature.

And to be clear, these areas do have value, but it also seems reasonable for taxpayers to call out the fact that these are terrible ROI investments, money-wise.