kirklennon

it is worded incredibly clearly and explicitly as a prohibition

And yet it’s inherently non-operative. I’m unconcerned with how it was intended since that’s totally irrelevant to what it actually is.

Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people. For what it’s worth, I advocate for the full abolition of the Senate. It’s an anti-democratic institution. There’s no way to fix it without making it a clone of the House so let’s just do away with it entirely.

And yet that provision is itself still part of the constitution so really an amendment just needs to have an initial sentence to override that limitation first. If there’s actually support for a change, anything can be changed.

Mattresses have an enormous variance in thickness, and sheets vary considerably in the depth of the "pocket." If your sheets can barely fit over a too-thick mattress, then they're going to pop off when you move on them. You might just want to buy some new sheets with a deeper pocket. Alternatively, you can buy elastic straps that go under the bed and clip onto the sheets. You'll generally either find these as a four pack of short ones that are meant to go only at the corners, or as a two pack of long ones meant to stretch under the entire bed and attach opposite sides. Get the long ones; they generally perform much better.

I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US)

You can definitely fire someone for being a sex offender in the US. Outside of a few exceptions that probably don't apply in your case, you can also fire someone for being merely an accused sex offender.

You can also fire someone for laughing in a weird way, or wearing a color you don't like, or being born on a Monday when you don't like Mondays.

CBDC is blockchain based, i.e cryptocurrency.

A CBDC can be blockchain based, but almost none actually will be. China's isn't. Japan's CBDC is not. In the US, the Federal Reserve is still in early stages but I'm confident it won't use blockchain either.

The login process for it is absolutely terrible and requires so much jumping back and forth between the dumb app and my computer, which is where I want to actually do my taxes.

Intuit divested the tax product in that sale, which was bought by Block (FKA Square) and is part of their Cash App brand. So it’s still around and still not Intuit.

This is about third-party apps.

I'm going to go ahead and just call this a nothingburger. The context is that you're already a registered user signed into the Facebook, etc. app. You've already volunteered the valuable profile data and the analytics data from actually using the app. If you're already OK with all of that, there's effectively no additional concern with the relatively minor data that can be collected or inferred from the notifications. The very idea that someone should or would turn notifications off on, for example, Instagram because they're concerned about privacy is ridiculous. It's like telling someone not to crack the windows on their car because it might rain, but they're in a convertible with the top down.

This isn’t going to fly with the EU.

If the EU didn't want to allow this then they should have written the law differently, but poorly-written regulations are their specialty. Apple's plan complies with the letter of the law. Developers are free to use a direct sales channel and can offer any price they want, along with various conditions that aren't an option in the App Store. They just have to pay a commission for access to the lucrative market Apple built. The specific percentage of the commission is such that it's not actually a desirable option for developers, but the law didn't say that Apple had to make it desirable to avoid the App Store's existing sales system.