DomeGuy

FWIW, A good argument for buying new isn't "look what the dealer's fixing", but rather "I don't want hidden surprises". Private party sales can very much be caveat emptor, and even getting a dealership to stand by their claims can be unprofitable.

Good advice, though not really germane to the topic.

Somebody has to buy the new cars for there to be used cars for you to buy, and the price you offer has to be more valuable to them than the car they're selling.

Dont sleep on either "many new cars are electric" or "cars last a fuckton longer".

Per-capira "total cost of ownership" for a car from purchase to retirement hasnt increased nearly as much as first-sale price would suggest. (Though the "financing cost" of the one-or-more transactions is a separate matter.)

So, you're a (1) university student (2) in a fraternity who encountered a fellow student (a) who is verbally and emotionally abusing an intimate partner.

(1+2)*A = you are a member of two distinct organizations which have some form of code of conduct, and have at.the very least an ethical responsibility to inform about the presumable violation of said codes of conduct.

Do not begin an intimate relationship with either "Beth" or "Ben". Especially not out of anger.

Your fraternity and university both should have someone you can talk to about reporting unethical actions, who can refer you to people far more knowledgeable about the rules, responsibilities, and laws that apply to you than pseudo-anonymous strangers on the internet ever could.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/execute

"Execute" primarily means "carry out", not "kill". The latter definition is an adaption from the person designated to carry out the act of killing people for violating the law, which presumably at one point was done directly by the hereditary executive.

"slave" means someone who cannot choose to stop working for another. If you can seek alternate employment or even just choose to stop working there, you're not a slave.

It's common practice to use the noun in a poetic sense, such as "wage slave" or "corporate slave", but such usage doesn't rise to expanding the definition of the word.

The article is about decentralization of assignment of IP addresses,.not CDNs or social networks.

It's like "imagine if you and your friends could just make your own phone system by making up your own numbers without having to rent them from telecommunications companies "

Whatever device you're using to post to Lemmy can easily handle "thousands of transactions per day". You're off by several orders of magnitude before transaction processing is a scaling concern.

CDNs exist to reduce lag and optimize media file delivery. They can be decentralized, and internally essentially are, but having a neutral clearing-house helps solve the "leech" problem that thinks like BitTorrent suffer from.

https://thecookingfacts.com/what-are-the-ingredients-in-campbells-cream-of-mushroom-soup/

The condensed soups themselves contain cream and call for milk as the mixin. Your scare quotes are nonsensical.

(The real "problem" with canned soup is the sodium content, and maybe exaggerating how hard it is to make soup at home.)

He can try.

Each of the fifty states literally has its own legal system, which are as a rule very particular about the separation of powers.

If Trump signs an EO directing the FCC to declare AI a."telecommunications" product.that states aren't allowed to regulate, there'd be that same week ten to fifty lawsuits by the states asserting that the EO was unconstitutional and had zero effect.

What the AI oligarchs want is for the FCC to decide this on their own without an EO, or for Congress to pass a law. (Although Scotus has made noises about lifting what can be done without Congress in other areas ...)

Can I go on the record here as saying this is sexist bullshit?

Scouts letting girls in does not make them somehow not "boy-friendly". It just lets dads and moms and brothers bring their daughters and sisters to do "boy-things"

So, if you’re still for collective ownership of the means of production...

Note that most self-described "socialists" aren't literally suggesting we ban the ownership class, declare the value of all stocks to be $0, and force every corporation to operate as employee-owned collectives. They're usually arguing for things like "expand our old-age health-insurance program to just cover everyone" or "make the city buses not charge a per-ride usage fee."

The hate against "socialism" is precisely because Karl Marx and some 20th century communists used it to mean something different, and then the right wing of United States used that label to try and smear every social program since the ban of slavery. Now we have two entirely different and incompatible meanings, and both a lot of bad-faith actors who intentionally conflate the two and a bunch of good-faith actors who aren't even aware there's a difference.