GHFigs

There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.

If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.

If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.

But what color are they going to paint the shades?

When you find a metaphor that works for you, the "rules" become rather intuitive. Lately I think of my information consumption habit as something of a diet: Eat when you are hungry. Stop eating when you are full. Stock only enough food for your anticipated needs. Favor nutritious foods. When possible, share meals with friends and family.

You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.

Pedophiles (or more specifically: child pornographers) routinely use strong cryptography and effectively nobody cares.

The confounding thing with stimulants of all varieties is that even people without any problem tend to report improvement.