chaos

It's possible for the rich and poor to both suffer. Of course, when the rich "suffer" that mostly means they can't have all the new things they want and have to settle for the excess they already have. When the poor suffer, they're devastated and unable to live a decent life.

(Yes, the rich get richer by stealing from the poor. A worker at Amazon causes $N to be paid to the company from her efforts, but Amazon will pay her less than $N so they can make money. The difference goes to the rich, whose only contribution was having their name on the paperwork. Billions and billions of dollars flowing toward people who are doing, at best, hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of actual work themselves. There aren't enough hours in the day to earn the money these people are raking in. It should be going to the people actually doing the work.)

It's the same rule, "fair use". Copyright isn't absolute, it needs to strike a balance between "give creators control of their thing" but also "people deserve to participate in our collective culture."

Making a one-off drawing of a character and not trying to make money off of it likely checks the fair use boxes (it's an explicitly fuzzy system, so a trial would be needed to say for sure if it's fair use or not). Whether the training set for a generative AI system is fair use or not is still an open question, but many feel that it can't be, as it's operating on a massive scale (basically every image ever created by humanity) and has the potential to eliminate the entire industry of humans selling the art they create, which copyright is supposed to protect. Ghibli isn't going to be harmed by someone drawing a picture of their characters for a meme. It could be harmed by another company making money off of mass production of knockoffs of their style which were created with thousands of unauthorized copies of their direct artwork.

Even if the right move was "give up and do what the Republicans want," they still did a terrible job. House Democrats held the line and stuck their necks out, only to get blindsided, and Schumer shouldn't have signaled that there'd be a fight right before he caved. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and only a handful of people in the party seem to even be trying to do anything.

Yeah, they're probably talking about nulls. In Java, object references (simplified pointers, really) can be null, pointing nowhere and throwing an exception if you try to access them, which is fine when you don't have a value for that reference (for example, you asked for a thing that doesn't exist, or you haven't made the thing yet), but it means that every time you interact with an object, if it turns out to have been null, a null pointer exception is getting thrown and likely crashing your program. You can check first if you think a value might be null, but if you miss one, it explodes.

Kotlin has nulls too, but the type system helps track where they could be. If a variable can be null, it'll have a type like String?, and if not, the type is String. With that distinction, a function can explicitly say "I need a non-null value here" and if your value could be null, the type system will make you check first before you can use it.

Kotlin also has some nice quality of life improvements over Java; it's less verbose (not a hard task), doesn't force everything to belong to a class, supports data classes which are automatically immutable and behave more like primitive values than objects, and other improvements.

They could organize protests, they could help workers unionize, they could put their necks out and disrupt things, they could do anything besides stand by and say "oh no, this is so bad." They have a gigantic megaphone and the ears of almost half the country, their power isn't limited to the votes they have or don't have. I want them to be making plans that are bold, plans where they feel a need to account for "how do we make sure this doesn't turn into an outright riot though," the things you'd do if you actually believed the rhetoric about Trump being a threat to democracy.

Fellow former popes, you mean, by reading this message you hereby excommunicate yourself.

I want my tax dollars to be used for something useful, not buying special little numbers

The only objection to that is that first episodes are usually pilots where they haven't sorted out everything and have to spend the whole episode setting up the premise of the show, not actually doing the show. Episode 2 is a lot more likely to be representative of everything that comes after it. But other than that, yeah, of course, just walk away, hit da bricks, real winners quit.

I'm bitterly clinging to my iPhone 13 mini, because I suspect it's the last phone I'll ever actively enjoy. I went along with bigger phones when that became the trend and decided I didn't like them, and the mini line was such a relief to go back to. Once it's no longer tenable, I'll probably just buy a series of "the least bad used phone I can find" because I know I'll be mildly frustrated every time I use it.

I'm still using an iPhone mini and I haven't experienced any bad layouts, broken websites, or any difficulty like that. It has the same resolution of the biggest iPhone I've ever had (iPhone X) so things are smaller, which would make it a poor fit for someone with poor vision, but for me it's an absolutely perfect phone. It's frustrating to know that the perfect phone for me could easily exist, and yet Apple will refuse to make it for me. I'll be stuck with phones I don't like for the rest of my life, it seems.

It's the last one, the "wait a day" option and the "pay $20" options aren't equivalent. If it's still a day away from viability, it isn't viable yet, but if it's $20 away, it is. You may be of the opinion that waiting a day isn't a big deal, or is only $20 worth of hardship, but that's not your choice to make for others.

You'd think ending a doomed pregnancy would be a simple matter even for pro-lifers, yes. They often don't consider the issue, or assume that it'll always be clear-cut and obvious in every circumstance, or worry that any exception will be used as a loophole.

I can't believe this word doesn't seem to have made it into any part of this thread, but I think you're looking for viability: the point where a fetus can live outside of the womb. This isn't a hard line, of course, and technology can and has changed where that line can be drawn. Before that point, the fetus is entirely dependent on one specific person's body, and after that point, there are other options for caring for it. That is typically where pro-choice folks will draw the line for abortion as well; before that point, an abortion ban is forced pregnancy and unacceptable, after that point there can be some negotiation and debate (though that late into a pregnancy, if an abortion is being discussed it's almost certainly a health crisis, not a change of heart, so imposing restrictions just means more complications for an already difficult and dangerous situation).