Right now there are three “biggest powers” on the world stage. US, China and Russia. China has belligerent rhetoric towards a lot of their neighbors, particularly Taiwan. They want the areas they control, but largely stop short of action. It’s why they claim the South China sea, and other nations need to pointedly ignore their claims to delegitimize them.
Russia has been openly annexing, or trying to anyway, their neighbors, and using historical precedent as their excuse.
As the largest power, the US very notably not annexing land nearby shifts the tone way into the realm of it being the norm not to do that.

Annexing, or at least threatening to, nearby land makes it more that all major powers do so, or at least are looking for opportunities to do so.
If cold war schemes give the US historical claim to Greenland, then Russias claims on Ukraine start being less unhinged and more generally expansionist.

The wording is specifically that you need to be qualified to hold the office of the president, not to run for the office.

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

With qualifications to hold the office being:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So the phrasing of the 22nd created an issue:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once

Elsewhere it talks about eligibility to hold office, but the 22nd only refers to election.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-22/overview-of-twenty-second-amendment-presidential-term-limits

There’s also a similar issue with the speaker of the house, where eligibility isn’t as clearly defined as one might expect.

While the intent of the law was clearly to codify the previous pattern of capping it at two terms (and being spiteful to FDR) it’s phrased with enough ambiguity that it’s clear how they’ll argue it.

Possibly not the greatest example. The whole “Japanese internment camps” thing, as well as the (radically less controversial) suspension of habeas corpus for Germans captured on US soil.

More that it normalizes a return to military expansion of national borders.
Russia is trying to grow their territory by annexing neighbors.
China would plainly like to.
The US didn’t, which made the scales tilt towards Russia acting badly and unusually badly.

With the shift, Russia is just the only one acting on a policy item that all the major powers have.

And like clockwork: https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-arctic-trump-greenland-2dbd00625c2c0c3bd94a2c96c7015b69

“Putin says US push for Greenland rooted in history, vows to uphold Russian interest in the Arctic”

Speaking at a policy forum in the Artic port of Murmansk, Putin noted that the United States first considered plans to win control over Greenland in the 19th century, and then offered to buy it from Denmark after World War II.

“It can look surprising only at first glance and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current U.S. administration,” Putin said. “It’s obvious that the United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”

The US and Greenland; Russia and Ukraine: it only matters that it’s rooted in history, right?

It’s worth noting that one of those organizations is IBM. Mostly relevant because they’re the ones that originally built a lot of that cobol, the mainframes it runs on, and even the compilers that compiled it.
They’re basically the people you would expect to be able to do it, and they pretty quickly determined that the cost of a rewrite and handling all the downstream bugs and quirks would exceed the ongoing maintenance cost of just training new cobol developers.

My dad was a cobol developer (rather, a pascal developer using a compiler that transpiled to cobol which was then linked with the cobol libraries and recompiled for the mainframe), and before he retired they decided to try to replace everything with c#. Evidently a year later their system still took a week to run the nightly reports and they had rehired his former coworkers at exorbitant contractor rates.

Not to specifically defend Apple, but the race demographic issue is slightly more complicated.
The inequality is more systemic. Educational investment and economic inequality means that there’s a difference in educational outcomes for the black population in the US.
Basically, to have representation in line with the population Apple needs to make a deliberate effort to hire in that proportion. Having an unbiased hiring process falls back to the systemic bias that shifted the hiring pool. That 7% is basically the representation of black people in the hiring pool for high tech jobs in the US.

There are still major issues with tech companies and diversity, such as not addressing the issues that created an environment that pushed people out of the sector, but that 5% difference represents a naively unbiased process, as opposed to a specifically biased one.

That tracks. I currently have better regard for Canada than I do the US, and while Canada has problems like anywhere else, they’re not charitably described as “your countrymen elected a felon who already did a bad job” as president. And the healthcare system is just… Better.

“this is the fault of the democrats and Joe Biden. If they hadn’t messed everything up we wouldn’t need to fix it like this”.

They’ll say that and their constituents will listen. Remember, these are people who voted for the guy who wrecked the economy over the guy who made progress improving it because the economy was bad and they wanted it to be better, like what the first guy wrecked.

It does work there. The unfortunate thing is that so many sites change their login structure often enough that it no unusual to discover that a site just changed again and you need to update the list.

Should have said you’d be delighted for them to visit, and then just not let them inside. Deny any knowledge of talking to them before. Waste their time and money and call them names.

I actually wouldn’t be shocked if it was possible with modern smartphones. A significant amount of money is available to be made from federal security work, and meeting the NSA criteria has benefits that extend to companies that work in the federal security space as well.

Well, it’s all moot. The white House insisted that nothing in the messages was classified and called him a liar, so he published the full transcript, which showed that people had lied to Congress and leaked the details of upcoming operations before they happened, as well as the identity of individuals not typically made public.

I think you’re confusing me with someone else, because I’ve been perfectly chil, and I haven’t jumped to any conclusions.

Person I replied to said they shouldn’t publish because it’s classified. We have case law that says freedom of the press outweighs that with a very high bar for exceptions. We shouldn’t censor ourselves just because the news, which is currently the focus of a lot of talk, is “boring”. Make them actually ask at least.

Have you read the messages? According to the person who decided not to publish them there was stuff potentially more significant.
War plans being accidentally sent to a journalist is intrinsically in the public interest.

I was unaware the classified information being “boring” was a good reason for a news outlet to self censor.

Also… The Pentagon papers were literally just “boring war plans”. War plans often contain motivation and desired outcomes, which are sometimes big news.

Publishing classified information, no matter how innocuous or unharmful, is still illegal

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/

We’ve got pretty good case law to show that freedom of the press goes pretty far, and that since the public has a pretty clear interest in the information it’s pretty much a given they can publish it.
If they prosecuted the Atlantic for it, they’d also need to hold that whoever sent them the classified information was guilty of the same offense.

How’d that work out for Poland?

It’s unfortunate, but an aggressive shitty neighbor is your problem, even if you don’t want to deal with them.

Trumps rhetoric, if coming from the head of a different country, would be used to justify a drone strike. And it wouldn’t even be one people would use as an example of why dronestrikes are bad.

Thank you for being uncertain. :) I mean that sincerely. Some people are too quick to dismiss doctors expertise, and some people are too eager to try to use medication to solve “boredom”. Trying to make sure you’re actually doing the right thing is great.

Just remember: one of the effected things is executive function , or the ability to act deliberately and stay on task. You unfortunately see a trend of people who think “they don’t need medication, we just need to teach the better study skills/to focus/etc”, which is the one bit you can’t teach.
And get them a bowl to put whatever that thing they keep misplacing in. They might not be able to remember where they put it, but they can learn to always put it in the bowl.

I got medicated as an adult, so I can’t directly share my experiences relating to your question.

I wish I had been medicated at a younger age, since I can see so many problems I had in my life that were ultimately related to entirely unmanaged ADHD.
I also turned out fine without it, things were just more difficult.

Make sure you trust your pediatrician and that you’re on the same page as them. That’ll make it easier to feel confident that their advice is in line with your goals. They all have your kids best interest at heart, but there are different emphasis they can focus on which might not mesh with yours.

Talk with your kid and see how they feel. They might not be old enough to fully articulate things, but you can try to get a feel for if they’re feeling volatile, struggling or things like that. Look at how they play alone and with others, and at how they engage with homework.

Start slow, and work your way up.

It’s most likely gasoline. It’s very difficult to engineer upholstery and rubber to be resistant to prolonged exposure to an open gas fire. Usually the best you can do is get to a minimum safe time for certain temperatures.

The highest standards you’ll run into day to day are baby clothing, bedding, and residential wall insulation.
The reasons for those being specifically regulated should be relatively obvious, and are respectively heartbreaking, scary, and sensible.

Cars tend to be going fast when they encounter issues, and there’s a lot less ability to make a lot of assurances. As a result, cars tend to be designed for controlled failure rather than resilience. This allows to car to fail around the passengers, hopefully resulting in the car, which is totaled anyway, absorbing the damage the passengers would have otherwise gotten.
We can make a car that can take a 45mph collision with an oak tree. We just don’t know upfront that that’s how it’s going to crash, and the squishy people inside can’t be made to tolerate a 45mph collision with the dashboard. So instead of making a perfect fuel tank, we just make sure that if it breaks it tries to rupture the fuel away from the passenger compartment. Instead of making the upholstery incapable of burning (which comes with downsides like “expensive”, “uncomfortable”, “ugly”, “smelly”, or “even more toxic than current flame retardants”) we make it able to resist burning for as long as it would take for the air inside the vehicle to become deadly hot. It doesn’t matter if the seat fabric is unscathed if the fire is hot enough to warp the metal.

Beyond all that, Tesla’s are notoriously poorly engineered, and in that category the cyber truck is best in class. I do not know, but would not be surprised, if accelerant was simply able to seep into the more flammable parts of the car from the outside.

As for surveillance catching the people, covering your face, obscuring identifying marks, and simply being far away by the time anyone notices the fire is a good bet. The police might try a bit harder because it’s an expensive property crime, but it’s ultimately a property crime where no one is going to be building their career on it, so there won’t be real incentive to go above and beyond.