ricecake

Do you think I made this donation?

I replied to someone saying it was sad someone gave money to a murderer.
I don't think it's sad someone gave money to help someone they think might not be a murderer, and even if you think they are one, it's not sad someone had the impulse to help push back against what they saw as a biased application of the Justice system.

I understand you think that's misguided in this case. Do you understand how that's kind of a nonsequitur?

Well, aside from the boring "routine expression of a spectrum of neurodivergent traits being better understood leading to increased ability to properly diagnose it, and increased awareness and support in the public education system allowing more teachers to see early indicators and advise medical consultation early so kids can get better support".

They used to just call mildly autistic people geeks and best them with rulers. Now they let them wear headphones to reduce distractions if they need it.

Yeah, you're not exactly sounding rational there buddy.

You think we should mistrust doctors who advise you take a preventative treatment that every healthcare system on earth recommends and has since the treatment was created because in one country the people who pay for medicine sometimes don't want to pay for things the doctors recommend (and you're saying don't trust the doctors, mind you), even though the people who pay for it actually recommend it because they make more money if you don't get sick.

Even in a full conspiratorial mindset your nonsense is disjointed.

Antivaxers are fucking idiots because they don't have a coherent internal logic for their paranoid woo, they don't have the ability to understand any of the research that's happened, and they don't want to trust the people who do because those people clearly want to hurt them and give them... A developmental disability. For profit somehow.

What does that have to do with anything?

Someone with resources gave money to aid the defense of someone they think is being treated unjustly after watching and seeing what they thought was mistreatment.

Are you just trying to aggravate people, or do you actually have a point?

They're saying that they find due process to be lacking and the prosecution to be political.
Do you think it's depressing that someone would donate money to the defense of someone they think is being inappropriately prosecuted?
If you think they're guilty, you should still want them to get the best defense possible, so that when they're found guilty it's airtight. Our justice system is based on an adversarial model. If the prosecution, with the resources of the state, can't successfully argue that they did it and that their arrest and all procedures were properly followed, do you really want that to still mean someone faces the death penalty?

"a drink" contains roughly the same amount of alcohol regardless of type, so a daiquiri should get you about as inebriated as a beer.
Some caveats: since drunk people drink more, some places have specials earlier in the evening or on some drinks where you can make it a double for no or low upcharge. That glass now has two drinks in it.
Some drinks are easier to drink fast, which makes you feel the effects faster and stronger, so you might perceive yourself to be "more drunk", even though it's really just hitting you all at once. Delicious sugary drinks that mask the alcohol flavor are notorious for that.

It takes about an hour to process a drink; sugary drinks will inevitably give you an upset stomach; water and food help keep your stomach settled ; you'll have a better time not having a drink you could have and feeling good than having a drink your shouldn't have and feeling gross, so if in doubt say nah.

You'll be fine with one with a meal with someone you know. A second is probably fine in the circumstances but more than that is iffy.

So, for the actual answer to how you get private security: you hire a company like constellis (formerly blackwater, or Iraq war crime fame) or the honest to God pinkertons, who are actually still around.
You pay them unholy amounts of money and get some burly people to follow you around, with skills proportional to how much you're paying them. If it gets to the six figure a month range, they also get more war-crime-y because you're going for the highly qualified special forces folks who miss the fun of combat and murder.
If you try to pay what feels like a reasonable sum for private security you're getting a cop working a second job who is definitely not taking a bullet for you, and probably not doing anything more to keep you alive than what's coincidental to keeping themselves alive.

The company I work for does business in countries where kidnapping foreign business people is a common and lucrative way to make money (it's effectively IT consulting, we're not evil beyond the baseline capitalist level). We hire security people for preposterous sums and basically get former special forces who drive a car, make sure the person who showed up to the meeting is actually who they should be, orders delivery food, and tells you not to do stupid things. They try to keep you from getting kidnapped in boring ways, and if you do get kidnapped they coordinate the ransom exchange. (That I know of the most that's ever happened was someone made the phone call to verify that the car they were about to get into at the airport was the pickup, and were told that it was not, abandon your bag if they've already loaded it and immediately go back into the airport and wait for the guard who showed up a minute later and handled the police interaction)

In general just try to avoid being in a position where you feel like you need to have hired a hero.

There's an interesting, although ultimately flawed, argument that the 22nd says that a person who's ineligible to hold the office of president can't be VP, and that a person can only be elected to two full terms.
It's an interesting argument that he's not ineligible to hold office, so he could be VP despite not being able to be elected.

It's ultimately flawed because the intent of the amendment was clear, and if we're working around it to that extent we're really sort of done with the law anyway.

https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan-2024/

The makers of the image are listed at the bottom.

Different people have different skin, oils, water supplies and diets.

Everyone needs to clean themselves regularly, but the exact details of what that means varies by circumstances.

Most people are fine with shampoo, a gentle soap, and warm water.
As long as you're getting rid of old dead skin, excess oils and any grime you're fine though. Soaps make that easier, but they're not a requirement.
I'm prone to dry skin and greasy hair, so I use a shampoo, cool water and a scrub brush instead of soap for my body. Perfectly clean, just need to scrub a little longer to make sure I get everything.

Which, to be clear, is the point of the AP. It's a wire service, and exists to write stories it provides to other outlets, since many don't have the ability to provide basic coverage of events far away.

Briefly looking at the wiki article, it looks like it's more complicated than that. The president does have pardon power there, but not all crime in DC is a federal crime. There's a lot of fiddly bits where for many purposes DC acts like a state as well as a city.