Though, you generally don’t tell that to their face, not in that way, and certainly not when they’re confiding in you about/celebrating finding themselves. That’s simply hurtful, and beyond rude.

You generally won’t go up to your friends on their wedding day, and say the same phrase. You’re more likely to put it as “I’ll miss drinking with you in the back yard, but I’m happy you’re happy”, and not as a seriously-spoken “It’s like watching my friend die!”.

“capability of holding eggs” covers the vast majority of humankind. Hands are useful like that.

Especially since they’ve currently got a big, expensive war on their hands, that they’re all-hands-on-deck for.

As an example, medical care/inheritance rights are one.

Back before the days of gay marriage, there were no end of horror stories of LGBT people whose partners were dying from HIV, and were forbidden from seeing their dying partners, or for estranged family to swoop in and kick the “friend” out, preventing them from seeing their partner, often taking everything that belonged to the deceased in the process.

A relatively famous art piece has a similar story, where Boskovich’s boyfriend’s family swept in and took everything from their shared apartment after he died, effectively erasing their relationship in the process. All that was left was an electric fan.

People wouldn’t blink twice if you’d brought your partner some chocolate, or lunch because they were having a bad day.

The way she contextualises it is a bit odd, but the actual thing isn’t that bad. It’s just accommodating him, being aware of his particulars, and helping him over his issues. The gift of a single M&M is unusual, but giving your partner something nice isn’t strange. People do similar things all the time in relationships, it’s just not thought of as training.

Biggest issue is her framing it that way, because people might either get the wrong idea, or give the wrong idea. Saying she’s training him like a dog gives the idea of a lead, like with an actual dog.

And normalising it is a good thing all-round. You want privacy to be used for trivial, unimportant things, not for it to be seen as something that only most secret vital things need, and thus something most don’t.

People would be more likely to use it that way.

Nor their history with intercepting/inserting affiliate links. Sure, that was for a crypto site, but nothing suggests that it can’t happen with other things.

Pragmatically, is that really any different with a passcode? Someone might not be able to physically force an unlock like with biometrics by moving the relevant body part over, but there’s certainly nothing stopping someone from forcing you to unlock your phone if you had a passcode through by duress. Most thieves would have certainly wised up enough to force you to remove your passcode before leaving, or they’d watch you unlock your phone, and figured out the passcode that way.

I rather doubt that, if in that kind of situation, there would be many who would resist. Your phone is not worth your life for most.

Personally, if I wasn’t doing anything sensitive, like travelling through some countries (like Australia/the US) or going to a protest, I’d probably keep it on. The convenience makes up for it for the most part.

The brain equivalent of doing a burnout.

At least one major paper did, although it used AI images instead of text.

There was a paper with AI generated diagrams that not only passed peer review somehow, btu was published in a pretty major reputable journal.

You’d have normally expected them to catch it in peer review and decline to publish, especially as they took it down later.

E-War probably comes close, though.

Incineration is a terrible idea indoors. At best, you’ve now got the smell of cooking and pyrolised human juices filling the place, and at worst, is the house being filled with carbon monoxide from the combustion.

If you were powerful enough, sure. The court is only as strong as its ability to enforce a punishment.

The president is exempt from criminal prosecution for things they did as part of their duties, and if no-one is willing to impeach or impose other punishments, they can be as contemptuous as they like. How would the court stop then?

This seems unrealistically convoluted, to the level of someone who’s just looking for evidence of a conspiracy. A gang symbol is a bit rubbish if you need a cryptography manual to identify it. The whole point of a gang symbol is to advertise that you belong to the gang.

You could probably find a trifecta of 3s and link him to the Illuminati if you tried hard enough.

It also enables a few of the older features, like being able to read replies to a Tweet, now that the website formerly known as Twitter bars it if you’re not logged in.

What did you expect, it literally has Virgin in the name (!)

Paper would fall under that these days, wouldn’t it? You can’t just fit a word (8 bytes) onto a punch card like the old days, and you’d need billions of the things go even start matching up to modern storage.

Likely, since he was fleeing El Salvador before he was deported back there.

It’s been lost in the excitement, but before the presidency, one of the concerns about a second Donald Trump presidency was that the US supreme court had ruled, not long prior, that the President just has immunity against criminal prosecution for some things.

It would hardly be a stretch to push that into no-one can do anything about it, because it’s legally permissable, as long as he does it officially.

Not a lawyer, let alone an American Federal one, but I am rather curious if that immunity could extend to just outright ignoring parts of the legal system. Contempt of Court might well be unenforceable because of it, so the court system is basically toothless where the presidency is concerned.