mcherm

Because Donald Trump is above the law -- laws simply don't apply to him.

(Or at least that is how much of the country is acting, INCLUDING the US Supreme Court.)

Interesting. The way I work, variable naming is one of the key areas that I would never want to outsource to an AI -- careful choice of variable names is a key part of code quality for me: unimportant things should have neutral, non-distracting names while mportant things often cause me to break out a thesaurus for just the right word.

LOL -- good point. I guess the correct answer is zero. 😃

One.

I'm thinking of a comic made to tell the story of a relationship, culminating in a wedding proposal.

The definition of success is different for different cases.

If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? "Flip a coin and move on" or "Just give in to the other side" are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren't as inexpensive as we might like).

Interesting. When I have sized a wedding ring (something I have done several times because of a combination of not fitting, and of me losing a ring twice over the past 28 years) I obviously had to work to get the right size. Like you, I chose rounded edges which made it easier for me to get the ring on and off my finger. Originally I had a width of 4 mm, and moving to 3 mm worked much better for me. (My fingers are particularly narrow and long compared to most men's hands.) But I have never been asked what "height" to use.

I would speculate that it affects the weight of the ring. (In my experience, too heavy a ring can be a problem. For instance, a heavy ring May vibrate against the steering wheel on long drives and make my fingers sore.) No one can really see the "height", so why not go with the thinnest that makes the ring still sturdy?

That's the common gag, but ACTUALLY the difference is in whether the recipient of the comment was open to hearing it and whether the speaker intends merely those literal words or has other implications.

I carefully read through the article and did not find a link to the study. Would you be willing to share the link here?

This article starts off as a response to another article, but doesn't link to the article it is talking about! I found that frustrating and poor form, community-wise.

He can appoint two new members to the Supreme Court and then have them rule that Trump, as President, is immune to being prosecuted or held responsible for any state or federal crime but like Bush v. Gore it isn't a precedent and doesn't apply to any other President.

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Yes, it is completely absurd and would undermine the bedrock principles of our legal system. However, apparently somewhere between 3 and 6 members of the US Supreme Court may be seriously considering it.

(To be fair, he does claim that this absolute immunity would go away if half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decided to impeach the President.)

Great question -- would someone ask that of my boss please? 😉