That might work for people with no families. There was a time in my life where I’d have cheerfully defected in exchange for citizenship and protection.

Today, I’d need that for myself and a few others.

Hopper died, too.

Isn’t the after sex cigarette kind of a trope?

They are helping, yes, but windows 11 is a driving force like I’ve never seen.

Which he will ignore as soon as he finds it inconvenient.

Why do people continue to think you can make a deal with someone who never upholds their end of a deal?

I’m tired of pretending their opinion matters.

Are you aware that their vote counts as much as yours? And many of them are in Congress, so their vote counts for a lot more than yours?

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to simply excise people without basic empathy from any role of leadership or influence. But until we do that, we have to deal with them.

According to Wikipedia, 1,500 people work there. We could have just given each of those people 100,000 a year for six years, and had a few thousand dollars left over. We could have given 3,000 homeless people $25,000 a year for six years, and made them productive members of society.

Instead, we made a rich Nazi richer.

You aren’t wrong, but you need to remember that a lot of people don’t give a shit about helping other people. Any argument that uses “good for people” as the basis of argument is going to fail with them.

Do your iPhones usually take oil?

What do you think plastic is made from?

Packaging, no. But manufacturing it into something else, yes.

Do you think a tariff on copper would apply to an iPhone? Or a tariff on oil?

That’s generally how tariffs work. A tariff on grain is not a tariff on bread. A tariff on steel is not a tariff on knives. A tariff on cotton is not a tariff on clothing.

It can be, of course. A tariff can be on steel and items made with steel. But that’s not usually the case, and it’s usually called out as such. Of course, Trump is not what you’d call the most precise communicator in the world, but all we can do is work with what he says.

Right, but this tariff, at least as I understand it, is on chips imported as chips, not on products that contain chips. An iPhone will, of course, be subject to some other damn fool tariff, but not this specific one.

Of course, my understanding of this specific tariff may be wrong.

What he means is, if I buy an iPhone built in China, this tariff won’t affect the price I pay.

But if I buy a phone built in America, with an imported processer, this tariff will make that phone more expensive.

This is the way.

Sure they can write laws making it illegal to claim the king of Thailand is a doddering old fool anywhere in the world. Good for them.

They have no legal right to enforce it on me, though. If I visit their country, of course, I will be subject to their laws. But they can’t apply it to me until then.

They can write whatever they like, but in practical terms, they can only enforce their laws inside their borders.

No European law applies outside Europe. That’s kind of the nature of laws.

Context is as important to language as syntax.

Context is important to the message, yes. But if I need the context to understand a particular word, I would understand the message just as well without that word.

Yea. Not helpful.

I’m aware of the existence of contranyms. None of the examples you gave apply, as they just have different meanings, or the same leaving with different connotations.