credo

If you get a ticket in a prima facie state, the law allows you to argue in court that your speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions. If you can prove that driving the exact speed limit would have caused a hazard, such as cars dangerously swerving around you, a judge may well dismiss the ticket because your behavior was safer than following the literal rule.

That’s all big tent stuff. If you really look at the core, foundational, pillar of conservatism- it’s protectionism. The “fuck you I got mine,” principle. Ensuring the status quo for wealth holders.

I’ve literally had one tell me I have to be polite or it would end the conversation. Stupid ass hole machine parroting support transcripts. I argued with it that it had no feelings until it finally relented. Haha

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Iran can provide the proof. Why the fuck would you continue to believe something after the initial “proof” was shown to be fake?

Maybe it was someone else’s?

What about the author? That does seem a bit harsh indeed.

Well, it’s an interesting meta discussion anyway.

Point of the rule is multi-faceted:

• limit editorialized clickbait titles
• limit reposts (under secondary titles)
• let the story author/editor team keep their voice

I was there on Reddit when the original rule was created. Like in the thread. And it’s a good rule.

If OP wants to write another article, and publish it with a new title, go for it.

The rule has nothing to do with this one particular instance of an actual good editorialized title. I like it. But I don’t agree with posting it over the story author’s title.

They said they did. Still no proof

Sure, how about from the folks who shot it down. That wasn’t parts from a different plane, or AI generated.

So much going on in that little comment of yours. The F-35 borrowed from the F-22 while reducing cost to become the JSF. It was effectively a downgrade on purpose

The F-22 was optimized for

• air superiority
• speed
• maneuverability

The F-35 was optimized for

• multirole strike missions
• affordability (relative to the F-22)
• exportability

Also, your claim the F-35 was “downed in its first actual combat mission that was not a balloon” is not true. (A) There is still no confirmed combat shootdown of an F-35. And (B) F-35s have conducted non-balloon-related combat operations for years in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

So.. not sure what you think you know, but it seems to be incorrect.

But all the fingers still get dirty?

Edit: the message seems to reference a challenge I’m not seeing. I turned off content blockers but didn’t see a change.

Original response:

Not sure, this is what I get. I’m pretty sure I’m not a bot:

Error: access denied: denied by administrative rule 653249cebe8a37b97cf64b61ecf8f969/81a4d3ff51d16981b7d8

Why am I seeing this?

You are seeing this because the administrator of this website has set up go-away to protect the server against the scourge of AI companies and bots aggressively scraping websites. 

Since the Invidious API is disabled for everyone, bots have now started to scrape the /watch page which is the one that serves video information to you, the user, bots are disallowed to touch the /watch endpoint at all, but they don't follow the rules in order to keep the Invidious working for real people simply trying to watch a video, that is why this challenge is displayed to you to verify if you are using a browser or scrapping the site. 

Please note that some challenges requires the use of modern JavaScript features and some plugins may disable these. Disable such plugins for this domain (for example, JShelter) if you encounter any issues.