Pips

She was a journalist who used the Panama Papers to expose high level corruption in Malta. Galizia did not break the Panama Papers story, she's impressive enough without people making stuff up about her.

Not every criminal case. There's strict liability crimes, the most well-known being statutory rape.

Didn't he tour with Mastodon?

I don't see anywhere that you can't also just buy a battery and charge it yourself if you'd prefer that over a subscription.

Sort of like how you pay over and over for gas, without which your car doesn't work?

Everyone I've spoken to about it has noted that it's become a very different place. I'll still use it for reviews and getting tips for serious things like privacy and some basic DIY. But a lot of that advice will be obsolete in a couple years and very few people are replenishing it. Who's going to give a shit about the best home theater setups of 2023 in two years?

It's a fairly routine argument by the defense (we're being singled out/the regulations are unclear). And regarding federal enforcement, there's a lot of hamstringing by Congress.

All that to say, this is arguably a good sign of the FTC properly enforcing, not a reason for pessimism.

I'm not sure how that's indicative of the FTC not being serious? You're quoting a defense argument, of course they're going to argue the agency is wrong.

It's medical ethics, not the Hippocratic Oath. Most doctors swear to an ethical standard. Besides, "first, do no harm" is a bit unhelpful if you're a surgeon.

Otherwise you're right, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the side effects of birth control, which is why birth control for women doesn't have as high a standard for mitigating other consequences.

I was very similar, heavy Reddit user that quit over thr 3PA shitshow last year. Not sure if you've noticed the same effect, but my attention span has gone way up.

Every instance gets to decide on its own, there's no set of rules governing the whole thing. That's why I stated this is my opinion, not some hard and fast rule.

So your argument is if the regulation isn't perfectly applied to every possible instance of a potential violation simultaneously, then it should never be applied? How does that make any sense?