Draw on the back of the homework. Draw in the margins. Turn the letters into little characters. Develop a story about them. Disassemble the pen. Try to figure out the click mechanism. Reassemble the pen. Turn it into a little catapult. Lose a piece behind the desk. Search for it. Find an interesting label on the bottom of the desk. Wonder why your desk was made in one country, assembled in another and quality checked in a third. Find one parts. Reassemble pen. Daydream about life of person who’s job it is to look at desks and say “yup, that’s a good desk”. Start to answer a homework question and become so overwhelmed with boredom you need to take a break.

Reducing vaccinations reduces herd immunity though.

There’s no polite way to say it. He’s not very intelligent and has a poor grasp of the information that would lead you to see that they’re effective.
If you don’t trust the government or establishment and you don’t have the capacity to evaluate evidence, then anything the government or established medical system says is good must be bad.

The most charitable explanation is that he, admittedly, had a worm eat part of his brain.

You can find reasons that people could be pushing vaccines that don’t do anything, but that doesn’t mean they actually are doing so.

I’d lean towards it being a case where routine expenses are presumed to be covered, and cancelling the card would just mean people payba different way. Setting a cap would change the definition of reasonable. I believe it also leaves existing already approved recurring transactions unchanged, since they probably don’t want to get sued for suddenly not paying bills.

https://smartpay.gsa.gov/

The government doesn’t run their own CC infrastructure, but they issue their own cards so cancellation is basically free. It’s kinda weird to say, but the government is bigger than any bank, so it makes sense that they would do things that even small banks are capable of.

That’s no longer a one time pad. That’s closer to a homebrew stream cipher with the weakness of having a key that you just hope no one notices.

You need a way to generate a psuedo random sequence that’s synchronized. You can then use that random stream as something that works like a stream cipher.

Getting synchronized sources of random numbers like that isn’t trivial, but it can be done.

To spitball a notion: get something like a small microcontroller that can drive a small screen, no wireless capabilities needed. Putting an implementation of something like the hotp algorithm on it will let you get some random data with each button press. That data can basically be used like a one time pad where you press a button each time you need more data. People decrypting the data just need to start at the same point in the sequence.

There are so many issues with this that I haven’t thought of, but it’s the most reasonable approximation of a pen and paper algorithm that has modern security levels and can be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Basically, you’re going to want to look into stream ciphers. Since those can be done without feeding the data into them, it’s possible to have a more disconnected system.

It’s worth noting that against a governmental adversary, you’re far more likely to be revealed via poor application of a custom crypto system than by a targeted bypass of a commonplace one.
If you’re under suspicion, a cop can grab the piece of paper you did your work on out of the trash if you forgot to burn it and no decryption is required. Being physically readable, the key material can be seized and it’s lost. If they have a warrant they can put a camera in your house and just record your paper.
With a cellphone, the lowest level of scrutiny that can use a backdoor that we know of would be a sealed fisa court order. Anything less official would require more scrutiny, since the NSA isn’t going to send a targeted payload to the phone of a generic malcontent/domestic subversive.

Widely used crypto systems address an extremely wide array of possible attacks, most of which aren’t related to the cipher but instead to issues of key management and rotation. This can give you guarantees about message confidentiality being preserved backwards in time if the key is stolen,cand only new messages being readable, as an example. (Perfect forward secrecy)

What you’re looking for can be made, but you need to strongly consider if it actually makes you more secure, or less. Probably less.

Probably, but a judge can’t just override the president on matters of foreign policy, and he’s the head of the political party in charge of both houses of Congress.

Relying on the system to save us from the people given control of the system isn’t going to work.

The military that he just dismissed the leadership of and replaced with his own people, and the CIA that’s directed by his people?

who?. He’s the one with the authority.

Well, you can’t legally arrest someone without a warrant. We’re talking about a situation where the rule of law is being dismantled.

Although, I also wouldn’t put it past them to argue that you don’t need a warrant to arrest someone for “issuing a treasonous court order” on the grounds that it was done in plain view or that they have probable cause to believe the judge committed said treason, which is a felony and thus doesn’t require a warrant.

It’s obvious baloney but that doesn’t mean it’s not a workable veneer of legitimacy.

While trump v America had the wrong ruling, the conclusion your sharing isn’t correct.

The ruling shielded the president from personal liability for actions taken as president. It didn’t touch the offices ability to be sued or be legally restrained.

If trump, in his capacity as president, violates the law “the president” can be sued and forced to stop, but not trump personally. You can’t send him to jail for improperly claiming authority over the FEC, but you can prevent the office of the president from doing so.

I’m sad that it’s children paying the price though. They don’t have any say in anything. It’s child abuse to intentionally infect them with a preventable disease.

The part where you then licked the boots, most likely.

“I’m a staunch vegetarian, but even I like a big ribeye once in a while”. You can see why people might disregard the first part.

It’s hard to focus on where you say you dislike trump when the following bit is where you justify calling criticism of him treason.

Except for the whole “first amendment” part, remember? Bezos isn’t legally prohibited from infringing on freedom of the press.

The government isn’t allowed to do things an individual might be able to.
You’re literally arguing that the first amendment doesn’t apply to government employees, which is absolute horseshit.

So you’re going with “freedom of speech doesn’t apply if you work for the government”?

We’ve never been in a situation even remotely like this before. A lot of people aren’t sure that doing a coup would be fighting for our democracy because removing them from office would be removing the, as far as any evidence can show, legally elected government. It’s about as bad as it’s been in nearly 200 years, but what if we “destroy the democracy to save it”?

Invading a country that most Americans like more than their federal government is an entirely different question. This current bullshit is disgusting and heartbreaking.

Anarchism is opposition to power hierarchies, specifically non-consensual or coercive ones. Wealth inequality without safety networks is a coercive power hierarchy, and so needs to be fought. Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now. In a system with strong social safety networks the choice to work for someone can actually be a choice, and so some schools of thought would view it as compatible.
Others view exclusive ownership of property as someone asserting power over someone else’s ability to use said property, and therefore wrong. Needless to say, abolition of private property is not compatible with capitalism.

Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn’t intrinsically a problem, it’s when people doing the work can’t say “no, they’re a terrible manager and they’re gone”, or you can’t walk away from the job without risking your well-being.

Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There’s also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don’t give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between “do this or I hit you” and “do this or starve”: they both are coercive power hierarchies.
Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The “tear it down” crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.

I mean, you have your answer right there. It’s not like Harvard is a particularly untrustworthy source for diet recommendations.

Why are you doubting the number? If you feel fine and don’t want to change, don’t. Everybody is different and has different needs, and you might just need less, but anyone reputable is going to give the same rough range.

In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can’t be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.

For politicians, I would default to “literally everything is protected free speech”, with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
“I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia” is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.