This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker.

My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)

I just think that a significant number of people will see what they're doing and thing "Oh, they're looking out for me." I think it's best to be skeptical of any company's motives, whether their current business decisions seem to help their users or not.

It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? Selling user data.

Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them.

Have you watched mainstream news sources over the last 4 or 5 years? Everything that Trump has done (for better or worse) has been met with constant pushback and criticism.

Even when he does something that everyone should see as a good thing (like multiple Middle-East peace deals), they find something to criticize about.

Edit: According to NBC News, POTUS can pre-emptively issue a pardon.

[0] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-trump-pa...

But yes, if he has something that he can point to when re-election time comes around and say "Look, I tried to help Trump out" then it will probably guarantee him votes.

I'm a Texas resident and didn't know he had already been indicted. But I tend to vote Libertarian for local and state positions so I didn't really look too much into his background.

Once I was lucky enough to get a steroid prescribed and it worked wonders compared to a dose of Ibuprofen every 4 to 6 hours.

Also, I would imagine many of the sheriffs that refuse to enforce mandates probably have considerable support from their constituents. Surely that would make their impeachment a significantly more difficult ordeal for whatever agency is responsible for the impeachment proceedings.

As a Python enthusiast that writes C# for a living, I appreciate what you've done here!

It may be, I'm certainly no expert. As a layman I've been led to believe that if you alter user-generated content you toe the line of being classified as a publisher as opposed to a platform. And my understanding of platform versus publisher is that the latter is legally liable for the site's content and thus allowed to be moderated more heavily than the former. Again, I have zero experience with writing/interpreting law so recognize that I could be wrong here...

My understanding is that if these companies wish to use Section 230 to keep themselves from being held liable for what their users post. By censoring users' posts that don't violate the law they are acting as a publisher and not a platform, ergo eliminating Section 230 protections.

To my understanding, Trump didn't authorize the publishing of his tax info, so surely that would count as "hacked" or "illegally obtained", right? From what I've read about Hunter Biden's laptop, the information was legally obtained because he left the computer at the repair shop long enough that it legally became the property of the shop owner. I could be wrong (and if I am, please let me know) but that, to me, seems like clear bias on the part of Twitter and Facebook.

If they had treated both articles in the same manner I would likely agree with you about a lack of bias, but it seems to me that this was done to prevent damage being done to one campaign.

But there are some (specifically the Libertarians for Life[0]) who attempt to justify the act of abortion as a violation of the NAP. If I understand correctly, their reasoning is that human offspring are human beings regardless of their stage of development and thus terminating a pregnancy is literally killing an innocent person.

Personally, I think saying "You aren't pro-choice so you aren't a libertarian," isn't so cut and dry.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_for_Life

Maybe one or both of these games will be good, but the highest Metacritic user score of the two is just 7.0 for Vampyr. NFS has just a 4.2.