docAvid

The pardon power should be eliminated, and that's been clear since Nixon was pardoned. Sure, just about every president has a feel-good set of pardons, people who were railroaded by bad laws and bad court practices, but those corrections are only a tiny fraction of the outrageous injustices committed by our system, and their existence is used to justify the injustice in the first place - "oh but surely there will be a pardon for people who really need it" - as if depending on a single King-figure at the top to make good decisions, instead of improving systems, was ever a good idea. But in the meantime, just about every president also has a list of political pardons they trade for favors, or use for people who committed crimes on behalf of the president, or the party. Why the fuck does it make any sense at all to say "hey, this person was elected head of the executive branch, they should be able to just shield people from the rule of law", if the rule of law is an important basis of a free democracy? It's weird, when you think about it. End the pardon.

Pretty sure they meant to not have review. Dropping peer review in favor of pair programming is a trendy idea these days. Heh, you might call it "pairs over peers". I don't agree with it, though. Pair programming is great, but two people, heads together, can easily get on a wavelength and miss the same things. It's always valuable to have people who have never seen the new changes take a look. Also, peer review helps keep the whole team up to date on their knowledge of the code base, a seriously underrated benefit. But I will concede that trading peer review for pair programming is less wrong than giving up version control. Still wrong, but a lot less wrong.

I must not be educated. Please, what are the dangers of communism? And what, exactly, do you think the word "communism" means?

Why? Can you provide an accurate definition of communism, and a theory as to why you think it cannot be done without becoming a dictatorship? Can you provide an accurate definition of capitalism, and why you think it is more free?

Putin isn't a communist, though. Far from it.

Thanks, @EunieIsTheBus@feddit.de and @justlookingfordragon@lemmy.world, for clearing that up. I forgot you have to leave and come back for the rock to become scenery. Makes sense.

I mean great, I support this, but 450 people is "a massive march"? How did 75 organizations only come up with 450 people? That's only 6 people per organization. Here's hoping this grows a lot by the convention.

That's hilarious. After the Korok cutscene, normally the rock seems to be removed (as a physics item), and a scenery "rock" replaces it in the circle. Does the rock stay on your weapon?

The UCC I went to every Sunday of my childhood (Dad was the minister, so kinda had to go) would have a loaf of really good fresh bread. Some was cut up in cubes, to take neatly, or you could pull a hunk off the loaf if you liked. One side of the drinks tray had grape juice, the other had wine, again, your choice, although obviously when I was young, I didn't reach for the wine in front of my mom. Little tiny snack was the best part of church.

Or gets promoted, and keeps moving on to new and bigger projects, leaving a trail of destruction, because all management sees is they close tickets faster than the people who are busy picking up the pieces behind them.

Lincoln was pen pals with Marx, probably the most progressive president in our history, though sadly his time was taken up with stopping the slaver traitors. Imagine what he could have done if the bastards hadn't killed him.

So, do you not think the principle of ensuring a justice doesn't have to worry about their next gig is valuable, or do you think youthfulness is just more important?

I think the court should be expanded, quite a lot. There is nothing magical or constitutional about the number nine. Congress could easily expand it to twenty, or fifty, or more while limiting justices by terms or age would require a constitutional amendment. Nothing says every justice has to sit on every case. A larger court would be significantly less prone to extremes, reducing the importance of individual nominations.