Removed by mod

I wouldn’t expect the economics of private jets to work out either, and yet…

You’re barely even paraphrasing, that’s almost a direct quote.

Trump: ‘If We Stop Testing, We’d Have Fewer Cases’

Trump: ‘If we didn’t do testing, we’d have no cases’

If we did very little testing, we wouldn’t have the most cases. So, in a way, by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad.

Trump on coronavirus testing: ‘If we stopped testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any’

It’s important to know that both the FDA and the USDA are in charge of inspecting food, and which food is covered by which agency can be complicated.

FSIS [under the USDA] conducts continuous daily inspections of foods in its domain, whereas FDA inspections have no regular schedule. The FDA is more likely to inspect only after a tip about a possible food safety violation, so random inspections can occur up to 10 years apart or, in rare cases, not at all.

“It’s not that they don’t want to inspect more, they just don’t have the funding,” Raymond says.

This inspection imbalance means that pepperoni pizza, because it contains meat, has ingredients that will be inspected three times before the product hits the grocery store freezer: at the slaughterhouse, the packing plant and the pizza factory. A vegetarian pizza produced at the same facility, however, will probably not undergo any inspection.

And in regard to the FDA being not allowed to regulate:

[The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994] placed the burden of proof concerning dietary supplement safety on FDA, requiring the agency to show that a dietary supplement ingredient is adulterated rather than requiring the manufacturer to prove a supplement is safe prior to marketing. This is in contrast to new food additives, which require submission of safety information in a food additive petition prior to marketing, or drugs, which generally require submission of safety data as part of a new drug application prior to marketing.

At least with dietary supplements, they can’t make a new product guarantee it’s safe, the FDA needs to already know something is dangerous before it can force a recall.

If you’d prefer to learn more through a comedian, John Oliver covered this topic a while back https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg

The agencies are problematic because they generally aren’t allowed or don’t have the budget to properly regulate things. Eliminating departments isn’t going to help anything, and I really don’t think the guy that picks up roadkill for a snack will improve the overall quality of food in the country.

Before Oregon became a state, it fashioned itself as a whites-only utopia. When it joined the union in 1859, it was then the only state with laws specifically prohibiting certain races from legally living, working, or owning property within its borders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/oregon-once-legally-barred-black-people-has-the-state-reconciled-its-racist-past

It was started as a white ethnostate. Some people never really got past that.

All I can really say is, if you don’t want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn’t commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that’s deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they’re owed.

It also doesn’t help that he still thinks there are “unanswered questions” about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn’t feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.

Take his real assets and sell them.

This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they’re doing. There’s some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.

But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.

And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don’t like what they’re hearing. It’s not like once you follow someone on twitter you’re forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they’re following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.

But they did own the onions before they were sold to customers, which I think means they deserve at least some fault here.

For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent

So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn’t want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?

If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn’t have to sell it any more?

In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.

If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn’t have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn’t anywhere near that extreme because he’s not the only person in the world named ‘Alex Jones’, so how much of his ‘likeness’ is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren’t talking about future permission to use his likeness, we’re talking about a social media account used to promote his business.

If you had a talk show called the [Your Name] show, should it be immune to bankruptcy courts? Should a the company [Your Name] Inc. not be allowed to be bought and sold? Should we forbid people from selling tshirts or pictures with their names and faces on them? Where do you think we should draw the line?

The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?

Most people don’t own a business. The occasional use of facebook marketplace doesn’t make a personal account part of a nonexistant business.

His billion dollar settlement won’t be discharged through this bankruptcy, so his wages will probably be garnished for the rest of his life as it is. I really don’t have any sympathy for him, and taking the social media account he’s been using for his business as part of that business’s liquidation really doesn’t feel like a big deal.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he uses his twitter account mostly to advertise his business, making it more of a business account than a personal account even though it has his name on it.

Edit:

In seeking the rights to the social media accounts, the legal team for the trustee argued in court filings that Jones’ X account, and others on Telegram, Gab, Parler and other platforms, “are frequently used to promote and post Infowars content, and in some cases, have a significant number of followers.” Jones’ X account has nearly 3 million followers.

The trustee argued that social media accounts of influencers, celebrities and political personalities have become valuable assets, and that Jones’ accounts have drawn particular interest from multiple parties in buying them.

From the article neither of us bothered to read.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

I’m looking at the Full Volume, and on page 71 you can see

With about 2°C warming, climate-related changes in food availability and diet quality are estimated to increase nutrition-related diseases and the number of undernourished people, affecting tens (under low vulnerability and low warming) to hundreds of millions of people (under high vulnerability and high warming) … Climate change risks to cities, settlements and key infrastructure will rise sharply in the mid and long term with further global warming, especially in places already exposed to high temperatures, along coastlines, or with high vulnerabilities (high confidence).

At global warming of 3°C, additional risks in many sectors and regions reach high or very high levels, implying widespread systemic impacts, irreversible change and many additional adaptation limits (see Section 3.2) (high confidence). For example, very high extinction risk for endemic species in biodiversity hotspots is projected to increase at least tenfold if warming rises from 1.5°C to 3°C (medium confidence). Projected increases in direct flood damages are higher by 1.4 to 2 times at 2°C and 2.5 to 3.9 times at 3°C

Global warming of 4°C and above is projected to lead to far-reaching impacts on natural and human systems (high confidence). Beyond 4°C of warming, projected impacts on natural systems include local extinction of ~50% of tropical marine species (medium confidence) and biome shifts across 35% of global land area (medium confidence). At this level of warming, approximately 10% of the global land area is projected to face both increasing high and decreasing low extreme streamflow, affecting, without additional adaptation, over 2.1 billion people (medium confidence) and about 4 billion people are projected to experience water scarcity (medium confidence). At 4°C of warming, the global burned area is projected to increase by 50 to 70% and the fire frequency by ~30% compared to today

However, if you really want to get into it, you can read the Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Full Report. It has a lot more details about the effects of climate change on all parts of the world, but it’s also a 3,000 page pdf.

In the original there are 50, 16 rows of 3 plus 2 more.

I may not be good at giving it a number, but I can usually see how far apart two things are.

I really don’t think CSAM is a fake crime, but we can’t all be libertarians.

You’re definitely wrong about India, and famously China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History, so I don’t see why we can’t be trying to reduce emissions too.

1. OWNERSHIP

By accepting these terms, you acknowledge and agree that you do not own or have any proprietary rights in the Game or any Mods you create, except as specifically mentioned here. Any Mods you create are your property only if they consist only of your original creative work. To the extent that any element of your Mod includes or is derived from the Game’s intellectual property (such as code, themes, characters, names, stories, dialogue, locations, artwork, sounds, music, and visual effects), you agree that all intellectual property rights therein, whether they are registered or not, are owned by Larian Studios and its licensors.

I’m not sure I believe you about your first point.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/1995-animal-shapes

Another problem might be that animal shapes only has a range of 30 ft