I don’t know?

Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.

Aside from that though, let’s dig in.

Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.

Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”

Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table

I was obviously being facetious. Poking at the fact that rich vacationers visit the Virgin Islands while endorsing the above commenters opinion. Yes they (virgin islanders) need infrastructure as do many places.

Did you really read that as if I’m worried about one needing community and not about another, or were you being a dick?

Let’s refine your comment.

In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.

This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.

When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.

There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away

But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul

Pffff that’s poor people. What about the rich people on vacation for a week?? When will we learn to think about the rich people?

I truly don’t understand their motivation to do this. It is the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Maybe they hope that a lawsuit will arrive at a default judgement on adblockers? Or maybe they’re just so brazen in that the US government won’t break up one of its prized conglomerates? One thing is for sure, Mozilla is going to continue to be awarded headlines

Look through OP’s account. It’s an Israel state troll. A broken clock and all that, but don’t encourage it

The term is secure or self-secure.

As in: “it didn’t bother him because he is secure in himself”

You’re getting tripped up with the words. It could be rephrased to “copying the data.”

The owner doesn’t have any way to access this copied information, but they do have the copy that is on their phone.

The reason the owner isn’t given access to the data is obvious. Because anyone with a brain would immediately delete it, but the car company wants to be able to use it

They are confirming that, yes, it is an option to have a partition dedicated to just the user’s (your) home environment and folders

and

asking if that is an option that appeals to you or you have already considered.

It is what I prefer, but there are people who have good reason to not like that. It’s worth trying out imo, and later if you find that it doesn’t suit you, that’s okay, you’ll just need to find another solution

It would be nice if the article at least mentioned what the grounds for arrest were. I’ve never been arrested for a speeding infraction, especially not one that is 20 over on the highway. Drive for five minutes in any direction and you’ll see that