It’s one yellow tree dick, Michael. How much could it cost? $10?

Don’t the buttons on the handle need to be pressed for the chain to move?

What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.

And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?

German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.

It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.

This site says:

One of the most critical measures in the preliminary proceedings is questioning the alleged crime participants and witnesses to what happened. No statement should be made without legal counsel at this stage (especially when the police open up to the suspect to interrogate them as an “accused”). Investigators are trained to ask questions that could put the suspect in a bind and are increasingly success-oriented. This often results in hasty, ill-considered and incriminating statements, which can be used against the accused in the main proceedings.

Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.

Every country on Earth? Is there someplace police accuse people of crimes and then argue why they’re wrong?

Cops don’t collect evidence to prove your innocence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Never for you. You and your lawyer provide your own evidence. The cops won’t be collecting it for you.

In functional programming, everything is an expression (of frustration).

Who would buy cigarettes? Who would buy a Cybertruck? Who would buy meat? Just because you wouldn’t choose it doesn’t mean it’s a choice that must be banned.

Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

I would rather I get to make that choice instead of it being imposed onto me. You can make your choice. I can make mine.

Next item to discover on my list: why are Americans so upset about “black face”.

That’s because of minstrel shows. They were American comedy acts where actors would paint their faces black and act out racist stereotypes. The premise was “look at me! I’m a black person!” and then they’d do something stupid and everyone would laugh. Note that black people were slaves at the time. When slavery was (mostly) abolished after the civil war, the shows and makeup became symbols of racism.

It’s kind of like how a swastika in a Buddhist temple is fine but a swastika tattoo on a white American isn’t. The swastika doesn’t have to be racist symbol, but there are few places you could display one without it being interpreted as a racist symbol.

Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

But what if they did? Some places have already put laws requiring sellers to inform purchasers if they are selling a licence instead of ownership. If the terms were clear at the point of sale, and I agree to the terms, what’s the issue? You’re allowed to think it’s a bad deal, but why does that mean I’m not allowed to accept it?

Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped “supporting” it.

Right. If they explained that at point of sale they would be doing that, and I was alright with it, what’s the problem? I understand you wouldn’t accept that deal. That’s fine. You wouldn’t buy that TV. I don’t see why I must be prevented from buying it too.

Cultural appropriation is when you take something sacred or special and don’t treat it with respect. Sombreros and parkas are just clothes.

The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them.

If a company says they’re going to disable a video game a year after I purchase it and I won’t be able to retain or repair it and I agree to those terms, can I still buy it?

It’s not going to get the signatures because the average person does not care about this. I play a lot of games and even I don’t care. If you don’t like the game, don’t buy it. Why does there need to be regulation to stop me from buying it too?

I can’t imagine why someone would pirate this video instead of just watching the original…oh

The South African President?

Depends on the country. The Canadian government lists several special medical diets for prisoners. Food allergies is one but they list quite a bit like diets for diabetic or pregnant prisoners. For all these diets the prisoner must be diagnosed and can’t simply request it because they want it.

A diet of conscience is a requested diet for religious or moral beliefs. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires prisoners recieve a diet that conforms to their beliefs should they be able to adequately describe and demonstrate adherence to them.

Im going to assume OnlyFans doesn’t do that because they want to. They’d likely be harassed by government if they didn’t.

Pornhub had to remove all unverified videos (which was most of their videos) and now anyone who uploads must follow similar rules that OnlyFans has. Pornhub posted an announcement saying they reported 118 instances of child abuse materials while Facebook reported 84,000,000 but that somehow they’re the ones being threatened to be shutdown unless they implement more rules.

Glad I don’t have to give up eating beaver for Lent

There are dietary laws for Catholics, specifically about fasting and abstaining from meat consumption, but they vary wildly by region. For example, Canadian Catholics are permitted to eat meat on Friday if they perform an act of charity, read the Bible, or pray more than usual. Just make sure you’re Canadian or else God will be mad.