Challenging a stereotype is going to earn the “woke” label, so there isn’t a simple numerical answer. An all-black cast might not be considered “woke” if all the characters promote the stereotype.

Ideally, the answer to your question would be approximately zero. You should wear the “woke” epithet as a badge of honor.

Technically unlimited, but with an exponentially increasing annual registration fee.

Exactly. I don’t have a problem with artists profiting from their work. I don’t have a problem with their temporary exclusivity. The problem I have is when they never intend for that work to belong to the people; when they think they can maintain control over an idea long after it has become “culture”.

For the problem you mention, I would suggest that any studio who has been offered the work during the five year period owes royalties for a 5-year period after the studio publishes the work, even if it has since entered the public domain. Something along those lines would likely become a standard clause between the screenwriter’s guild and the studios, and doesn’t necessarily need to be enacted in law.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a longer period for some major works. Start with a standard, 5-year period from the time of original publication, then allow an extended copyright registration with an exponentially increasing annual fee. A few additional years would likely be affordable. The fifth, possibly. The sixth, only for the most profitable franchises, and the seventh being a large fraction of the national GDP. If James Cameron wants to pay for the entire military establishment through the proceeds of Avatar III, he can get one more year of protection.

I don’t really care to fight about what the original intent of copyright is,

Then you can get bent.

Art and invention benefit the whole of humanity. A work whose sole beneficiary is its creator does not qualify as art or invention, and deserves no protection.

The purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts. The purpose is to get art and inventions into the public domain. The purpose is not “to get artists paid”. Getting them paid for their works and discoveries is the method by which copyright achieves its purpose. It is not the purpose itself.

If they are only interested in keeping their works proprietary; if they are uninterested in pushing them into the public domain, they are not achieving the purpose for which copyright exists. They do not qualify for copyright protection. They can get bent.

Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.

I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.

Lower courts decide they can’t determine

That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.

The trial court judge cannot “send it up the courts”. They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court’s rationale was wrong.

And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.

That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.

At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.

Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.

Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.

No catch-22.

“Admissibility” refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.

You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.

Correct. That’s all you have to do.

and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.

Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn’t an official act.

What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to “official” acts, there would be no cause to charge him.

he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.

You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.

He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.

SCOTUS didn’t grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them “make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling”.

That’s it. SCOTUS didn’t do him any favors.

Women have enough problems with unwanted male interaction, not to mention so many lies about women’s anatomy. This makes it so much worse.

In this hypothetical, men switch from having a sexual interest in women 52/52 weeks a year to 4/52 weeks a year. I would expect a >92% reduction in “unwanted male interaction”.

I’ll take the entrails of a priest.

Joenald Triden

Convince Biden to drop out of the race about a week before the Democratic National Convention, citing health reasons, and name a millennial candidate who grew up on a farm with wind turbines and solar panels, before enlisting for 2+ terms, and moving to a middle-class area of a blue state after separating. Turn the convention into a media frenzy, energizing the Democratic base.

Undercuts Trump among rural Americans and veterans. Reverses all of Trump’s old and senile attacks against Biden, as he suddenly becomes the geriatric candidate. Keeps all of Biden’s supporters, while stepping away from the “genocide” criticism.

Basically, if Biden backs out a week before the convention and names someone in their 40’s, they can run on a platform of “Ok, boomer” and reach 270.

Is there anything you have done for which, if I had done the same actions, I would be irredeemable?

Is there anything that you have done, for which if I had done, you would expect me to jump into the volcano?

Feel free to judge yourself just a tiny bit more harshly than you would judge others. But only slightly. Give yourself as much of a break as you would give me after expressing remorse for my actions.

Who pocket carries?

Who carries a pistol unloaded?

Who carries a pistol with a manual safety?

I’m not trying to be insulting. Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. However, the issues you have raised have long since been addressed.

Typically, concealed carriers use “IWB” (“inside waistband”) holsters to keep their handguns at the ready. Not a pocket. It’s actually very easy to draw from an IWB holster.

All modern pistols are specifically designed to be safely carried with a round chambered. Some training doctrine calls for handguns to remain loaded but unchambered. Israeli soldiers carry without a round chambered, but they are the exception. The broad consensus now is that your carry/duty pistol should be loaded, chambered, and ready to fire.

External safeties were common in older pistol models intended for duty use, where the user might be on horseback, and they commonly used a belt holster with a large flap that required both hands to reholster. The thinking was that a safety made sense when the user has the gun in their hand, but their attention was on something other than shooting. For example, if a cavalry officer’s horse were to start bucking, they were trained to immediately thumb on the safety and tend to their mount with pistol still in hand, rather than try to take the time to reholster.

Modern pistols are designed to be used with modern holsters. A modern holster protects the trigger from unintentional discharge. As soon as a carry gun is drawn, it needs to be ready to fire, so very few carry guns actually have manually operated safeties anymore. Modern duty holsters are designed for one-handed reholstering.

The internal safety features of modern handguns are intended to block the striker from hitting the cartridge in case of a mechanical malfunction. They are not intended to prevent firing when the trigger is pulled.

Please, ask reasonable questions and make reasonable observations. This is a serious subject. Please don’t treat it like a joke.

If you’re ever in a position where you need a gun, then it’s already too late to protect yourself

Someone has never heard of concealed carry. Nor have they ever heard something go bump in the night.

Apple has an overly authoritarian business model. They strictly control every aspect of their ecosystem.

Apple long ago alienated the kind of people who would get upset about spying, LLMs. They either never entered the Apple ecosystem, or they left it decades ago.

Agreed, all the NBs I know are chill.

Their “allies”, not so much.

I shit you not, that is the etymological distinction between the two.

How strictly that distinction is observed is an open question.