Which is the point. Voting third party won't fix the system, certainly not at the presidential level. So work with what you have now, and work towards something better in the areas where it's actually possible.
A reasonably safe, fairly effective pipe bomb is easy to make with the some basic theory and high school chemistry knowledge. A moderately safe, highly effective pipe bomb requires only slightly more knowledge and a deeper understanding of high school chemistry. This stuff was easy enough that people were using it over half a thousand years ago to good effect. If you can't figure it out now with a couple weeks effort and the breadth of knowledge at our disposal, that's on you.
Doing something that demonstrably doesn't work isn't how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.
I'm not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.
Massive changes have been happening in the battery field for decades, they just aren't fast. Our rechargeable batteries are smaller, more energy-dense, longer-lasting, and cheaper than they were 40 years ago. They aren't magical, last forever, infinite power, instant recharge batteries, though, that's correct.
And absolutely HUGE pockets!
Remember, if it wasn't for Larry Ellison, LibreOffice wouldn't exist. I remember reading about those shenanigans while they were happening and desperately hoping a fork would appear soon. I wasn't disappointed.
I like how the face of every screw in that last picture is different. That's something, I guess.
Well, that's terrible, sure, but do you know how much they spend in American arms purchases?!
There's no evidence that what feels good to you actually reduces the odds of the perpetrator committing crimes again or reduces the rate of those crimes in society in general, and good evidence that what doesn't feel good to you does those things. So you will have to decide if you would rather feel good about how the person who did something wrong was punished or have less crime in your society.
Okay, you're sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here's a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I'm sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.
This isn't entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it's already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.
Let's say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?
Isn't it at meme levels when YouTube games have their screen go black and they mention Nvidia crashing?
Not a problem. It's essentially rolled into our taxes for the most part in Canada. You may have health insurance on top of that, but that isn't a guarantee and usually is a top-up of our universal coverage. This usually covers things like drug prescriptions, glasses, and hospital conveniences such as semi-private or private rooms. I agree with the general idea, though, that we as a group pay for everyone who is covered. My original point at the top of this thread is that removing people's eligibility simply because of risky behavior can be very tricky and likely harmful to society.
What makes you think that I, posting in a Canadian community about a Canadian article, have a contract with a healthcare insurance company?
Free climbers don't usually die the first time, either.
Housing can't really be a free market for a number of reasons: captive market; regional market restrictions; and high barrier to entry, to name a few.