FriendOfDeSoto

You start your life by forgetting your past. All the times you fell over, were hungry or overtired, or shat your pants as a baby or toddler. You don't remember that time unless something happened that's traumatizing in the extreme. Somewhere between that age and when you start school you start retaining memories. Not all of them but enough to reminisce. You're growing still so every day is a new experience and not everything makes the cut. And then you age. Once you cross 40 you'll notice a lot more that you cannot remember why you went to the garage but you can remember all the teachers from your elementary school days. Most of your classmates too but that guy's name in Accounting who you talk to every other day is nowhere to be found. And when you reach an age where death is becoming likely every day, you reminisce and you remember lots of stuff from ages ago but not what you had for breakfast. Dementia fucks with you but they remember their moody teenage music tastes and react more to that than their own offspring.

Memory retention is not a linear thing.

I'm going to guess yes, the mass increases. I'm not sure about physical size because it may just be density. But I also feel like I should stop talking out of my ass now.

Trick question: it's until the heat death of the entire universe. You get turned into this long spaghetti that gets absorbed at an increasingly slowing rate. So your scalp or your feet never quite make it to the inside.

This may be less than accurate because I'm not an expert.

It's funny you picked Apple computers because they were in a legal fight with Apple records of Beatles fame who've been around longer and were only allowed to keep the name if they stayed out of the music business. Which went well until iTunes and then they found themselves back in the lawsuit.

They would have to try fighting it on non-trademark grounds. However, being able to point at having been awarded one afterwards may carry some weight there as well. My impression is that their strategy doesn't rest on this alone.

The strategy behind this is also to be able to sue after the fact to get a cut of whatever was created from stuff that ought to have been protected but wasn't. It's not just a clip of him doing triple alrights that he applied for TM for. There is also one of him sitting down, one of him standing up. They tried to cover a whole spread of sora et. al. generated bullshit. It's an interesting strategy that is only necessary because the law on the books lags behind the developments in image or video generation. It may not work at all but it'll be a success if they win one case with this.

I hope you are right. I personally don't see it. I think we cannot underestimate the cult factor. All it takes is a Vance or an orange (or even the deviant MTG) to point at it and screech like a Body Snatcher: "It's socialism! It's handouts! Kill it with fire!" It won't matter what you branded it as. Their branding will be stronger.

I am afraid that this isolated (and probably edited and not very scientific) example of people seeing the power is reason will not scale to the masses. The fear of socialism is irrational and I don't think you can fix that with rational explanations alone. It's not like people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez aren't trying and there is enough of a base to get them elected - but not into executive power. On top of that you have the MAGA cult followers who would happily vote against their own self interest if they can say they owned the libs in the process.

I chose him because he is generally well liked. I haven't heard anybody shit talk him. I don't see him as a person of inaction or unaccountability. I do see him as somebody who acts from a set of values and who can heal wounds thoughtfully (without letting perpetrators go unpunished). Go ahead and replace him in your mind with somebody who fits that profile.

The problem with American politics is that it affects the whole world but the rest of the world doesn't get a say. If you organize armed resistance against 47, that becomes very active when he declares himself king with no more elections, you are looking at a civil war 2.0. The right-wing supporters are already armed and organized, you'd give them something to shoot at. And the standing military will probably majority side more with the other side. At the same time, while the US is distracted by killing each other at a higher rate than usual, China will grab Taiwan, Russia will push through to the Elbe river, etc. So it would be better for the rest of the world if you could not solve this predicament by force/assassination. Protest, strikes, use politics. But I can totally understand why the sentiment to use the 2nd amendment for its stated purpose for a change is an appealing option.

A socialist will not win 2028, provided there even is an election. NYC is not representative of the whole country. And most Americans are still on this cold war hangover where socialism became a dirty word. An outspoken socialist would not win. Unless we get another great depression - which will if history is our guide more likely lead to war. Or if they manage to fake centrism so believably well and are then okay to be a one-termer once they show their real colors. The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician (preferably male, blame the Midwest) without scandals (so nobody from CA) who can appeal to a sense of decency again. #MADA

I don't think this would've happened though if there hadn't been the societal impetus that aided adoption. The singular they may have been around since Chaucer or Shakespeare - ~30 years ago, people didn't really use it. There was far more "he or she" going on, that's now been more commonly replaced with a "they," also because it's shorter. English benefits from the fact that the neutral pronoun slots right in to the existing grammar. Other languages struggle with finding such a neutral replacement because it's more often than not a new word and a slightly altered grammatical function. English is okay on the first problem and arguably okay to mostly okay on the second.