I'm not sure I like that gamble.

So 100 years ago, a guy kidnapping your daughter (just an example of anything that could only be resolved by you knowing where you daughter was) isn't a serious worry, since that's a 0.01% risk as opposed to the 2% risk your daughter gets sick with whatever and dies.

Now, it's that same 0.01% risk compared to a 0.00003% risk thanks to advancements in modern medicine, so we worry about it much more.

If they're frustrated with Sublime due to not being FOSS, nothing I guess. But again, those people would have largely switched over already.

If it's the former, then yeah, I'm bailing, that's tremendously dumb. If it's the latter, then whatever, it's hardly even a selling point.

I don't think I could switch an ISP in 10 days, let alone seconds.

"A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.

A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.

I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.

Does my free speech only end when my actions infringe other laws? Or should my free speech overrule the consequences other laws? People want to claim free speech is a moral perogative, not just some words written into a Constitution, but you can't mix unlimited free speech with the real world, at some point, idealism has to give.

And I won't say GoDaddy, Google or Cloudflare necessarily should be the ones to draw that line, but someone has to. Something had to give after Charlottesville, and we're see that here.

So no, there isn't a biological basis for this, because gender isn't biological.

But besides that, my understanding is that though the internet is free, the various entities on the internet are equally free to refuse service. After all, if they were otherwise obligated, that would imply X's freedom can override Y's freedom, which also contradicts the nebulous ideal of freedom.

SC2's automated away most of this (pretty much everything but production cycles), which makes it a better measure for AI vs human.

Which is admittedly different than completely sugar free, since that's entirely absurd.

But we've survived every generation except the last 4 without so much processed sugar, and we now have global supply lines handing us crops practically to our doorstep.

The strategy itself still works, even if the particular details of implementation change.

Of course you won't notice much when comparing this year to last, especially since the weather's fairly random.

But the trends all point in one direction. Even remembering to my childhood (barely 15 years ago) paints a different picture than what we have today.

We might, but that's on our own volition, not out of any obligation.