Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I’m with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.

I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

Ain’t she a beaut?

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.

Arguably, you don’t tell them, and they don’t try to steal the idea, or try to sabotage it, or decide to build was plans that don’t depends on a successful nuclear strike.

people don’t need a guide when using a chat bot that tells them how they should treat and interact with it.

Then why are people always surprised to find out that chat bots will make shit up to answer their questions?

People absolutely need a guide for using a chat bot, because people are idiots.

Worthless shitstains.

I didn’t used to hate old people, but I’m learning to.

Not on my browser they aren’t. They just started offering to make groups one day, and while I want to tear out someone’s tongue for it, it would require far too much effort, and might just be a bit of an overreaction.

Thank you for this. Now I know hire to turn them off.

I don’t think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it’s spinning or not?

Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.

I think that if space itself is what is rotating, then speed of light limit does not apply. But if it’s everything in the universe orbiting, as it were, a central point, then it would.

But if it is space itself rotating, then that would suggest some objective frame of reference outside the universe. Wouldn’t it?

Moving towards becoming a shit company, you mean.

That’s why I specifically quoted that part, so if I was misunderstanding you, you could have corrected me.

On that basis, I think we are substantially in agreement.

I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.

So, what did you mean by this?

Yes, I see your reply. It doesn’t address my concern in any way.

At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree. Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.

At this point, we should be trying to show each other why we believe what we believe. I, for example, would talk about how seal-clubbing is unfair, even if allowed by the rules. You might argue that anything allowed must be considered fair. (or you might argue something else, if I’m not properly understanding your position) We might learn from each other. We might not.