ClarityJones

I don't think it's possible to conduct a war with a policy of evacuating anywhere that the enemy might attack.

Instead of demanding proof, you could prove them wrong by providing an example of truths that are uncomfortable, but not considered bigoted.

I decry the legitimacy of my coffee table, but my toe still hurts when I kick it.

I see some iPhone Pro Max buyers getting this simply because they paid around $1200 last year, then after trade-in ($885 for a 17PM), they could get into the Duo for $1,200.

If someone had that amount of disposable income last year, they might have it to throw at another upgrade this year.

If this proves to be a viable business strategy, then verisign could equally use it to re-sell google.com, ycombinator.com, etc. to the highest bidder.

I think your objection is fairly clear in terms of 1) you point out the difference between e.g. standing with a sign vs. more expensive options, and 2) you say "right to free assembly was to give richer corporations more sway."

Fundamentally it sounds like your complaint is that wealthy people are presumably more able to be effective with their efforts than folks who, e.g. can't afford as big of a bullhorn.

Citizens United wasn't about that. There wasn't a law saying no person shall spend more than $1k/yr supporting a candidate.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

If it's okay for Corporations can run ads themselves, then your objection isn't to wealthy people supporting candidates or even them doing so secretly, but... only when the little guy pools donations and they happen to be pool donations via a corporation?

Yes and no.

No, state's cannot e.g. discriminate on the basis of race by allowing corporations only composed of certain races. States also cannot infringe on the right to assemble or speak, by prohibiting people from supporting political candidates when they are organized as such a group.

But, generally, yes. States can require that the owners / members / corporate books / etc. of a company be disclosed publicly. If owners don't want their books disclosed, then they can forego the immunity that the corporate forms provide.

What is a corporation but people? Companies are groups of people. They're one or more owners, some managers, possibly some staff. If you take away all the people, then there's nothing there.

I wouldn't say CU enabled it. CU didn't address the secrecy of corporate forms. That wasn't at issue. CU was only about ~"Can people use money with their friends to support a candidate."

To say that repealing CU is the solution is to allow the critique to go unresolved, while arguing ~"People shouldn't be free to support political candidates."

Citizens United is a very sound ruling.

People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates.

People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big sign.

We want to encourage private business > limiting liability for owners who do not participate in the business would increase access to capital > we offer corporate forms that shield investors from liability > identity of owners may be kept confidential.

People complain about the wrong thing. The problem isn't that people are allowed to support candidates with their money, buy airtime, etc.. It's that companies have secret owners...

The Apple chips are quick when the model is "warm" on your second and subsequent requests. It's also quick if you don't have a harness, and feed "Hi, how are you?" as a prompt. However, a lot of common usage is to have a harness with lots of instructions and context. Loading that context is slow. So, the first response may take ~1 minute to return the first token (varies widely by hardware, model, etc.).

Comcast is an ISP and Cable Television provider, with a terrible reputation. When I cancelled my service when them I had to mail the modem back to them. I did it UPS shipping with tracking, because I know not to trust them. They never-the-less claimed they did not receive it, and billed me for the device. Eventually - armed with the shipping confirmation - they acknowledged receipt of the package, but insisted that the box was empty and that I mailed them an empty box.

I forget the other details, but remember to never do business with Comcast or their subsidiaries / partners.