I have no way to even estimate that.

I've used whatpulse on macOS, but it's intrusive in terms of permissions/license/etc. I tried a couple other open source keystroke loggers, but they were out of date.

Linux/windows might have better options, but I haven't checked.

I remember this little tidbit in economics class. This was a long time ago, so I don't know if it's still the case, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

The odds are better than 50% that someone who reaches the upper-middle/lower-upper wealth brackets will be bankrupt within 5 years.

> Option 2 is unthinkable under any circumstances.

Too many unthinkable things have come to pass in the last decade or so for me to find that reassuring.

International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

That says internation law as US law.

Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.

> it is selectively applied for national security.

This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.

This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so.

It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.

> and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.

Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.

It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.

Don't forget that Israel has nukes as well.

What possible advantage would using them offer Israel right now? The war is going just fine as it is for them.

So he's graduated from simply threatening war crimes to threatening genocide. We are the baddies.

Of course. If it isn't about making the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful or about killing/torturing/oppressing people, then this administration thinks it has no value.

I don't hate the concept of advertising. It can be done in such a way that it's actually helpful and even welcome.

But that's not how the vast majority of advertising is done. Most advertising is manipulative, deceitful, obnoxious, difficult to avoid, and ubiquitous. It's often injected into inappropriate and unwelcome places. Modern advertising also involves a great deal of spying, which is (in my view) entirely unethical and unacceptable. That spying is what makes me consider ad companies as actively harmful blights on society.

I hate that sort of advertising. It just happens to be the most common sort of advertising.

Yeah, pretty much everything has been degraded and continues to worsen.

Further evidence that my decision to stop using cards (outside of exceptional circumstances) entirely was a solid one.