Cocktails without alcohol cost way too much for what they are. That would be like paying 15 bucks for a burger without meat.

Restaurants sometimes also have like dozens of types of beer, wine, etc. but the best non-alcoholic they can do is a water or a coca cola softdrink?

(Their point was that Spotify’s free version is sufficient because they only want the things mentioned)

Bro, “Puritanism” is a religious movement of the 16-17th century. Maybe you mean purism?

(Serious) question: How do you stand not being able to select individual tracks? I honestly would rather listen to my music in any of the free frontend apps rather than being limited to that extent…

Honestly, what does this change? For paid users nothing, and the free version was always unusable with you not being able to individually select songs.

Do you need help lifting the rock you’re living under?

I was actually not aware of that… Makes more sense now.

Except I have cups in my kitchen that are double the size of other cups and I dont know which ones to use.

What part is wrong then? That’s pretty nuch what they say in the article.

If I understand this correctly, they are only using it to track terrorists who actively participated in a terror attack, right? What’s the big deal then…?

Depends on your country. Some just have lower tax rates depending on the item.

No, the turn signals (“Blinker”) here in Germany have to be yellow.

No, you tried shifting the discussion and when I told you what was being discussed, you simply said you’re uninterested.

First, you’re taking the U.S. at its word that there was anyone on its side in real danger.

No I’m not. I never claimed anyone was in danger.

Second, it’s laughable to take the premise of additional intelligence possibly endangering some spy and turning that into “this would kill all U.S. spies.”

Yeah it is and nobody did. I certainly didnt.

I don’t care about impossible thought experiments

Then don’t comment on one and don’t waste my time telling me that my answer to a morality question is “ridicolous” because it didn’t happen.

First, you’re taking the U.S. at its word that there was anyone on its side in real danger.

No, but the statement we are discussing assumes this from the start: “I would happily sacrifice the life of every single American spy abroad for a single innocent life.”

Second, it’s laughable to take the premise of additional intelligence possibly endangering some spy and turning that into “this would kill all U.S. spies.”

Yeah but we’re discussing the case where it would kill all spies. My statement was in response to (I repeat): “I would happily sacrifice the life of every single American spy abroad for a single innocent life.”

Finally, the U.S. has fucked over countless lackeys in the past and will continue to do so. Dying for your country is what these people already signed up for

Yeah but this is not “dying for your country” (it wouldnt benefit the USA in any way) but rather “dying for a single civilian of an adversary country”. They didnt sign up for that.

In this case yeah

I would not “happily” sacrifice anyone’s life. How about that? Anyway, Russia obviously didnt take the threat seriously and that was the actual issue.

But even in your case of letting all the spies be killed to save one civilian, it would in the end result in more dead civilians because if a country does that to its own spies, nobody will want to be a spy for them anymore, thus less “protection” overall.

How about not sacrificing anyone’s life?

Thanks :)

On a seperate note, brain size does not relate to intelligence.

I would happily sacrifice the life of every single […] And you are a bad person if you wouldn’t.

…says everything one needs to know about your morals and your attempts at manipulation.