You’re copying the idea of brilliant entrepreneur Chabuddy G.
It’s adorable that someone world think that the fourth most widely-spoken language on the planet is a secret code that no one in public would possibly have a hope of comprehending
Even if someone doesn’t know a language initially, they aren’t secret codes! Anyone can get a language learning app on their phone and practice it until they know enough to follow a conversation.
Fun fact: “petit ami / petite amie” means “boyfriend / girlfriend”
Pretty much anything related to statistics and probability. People have gut feelings because our minds are really good at finding patterns, but we’re also really good at making up patterns that don’t exist.
The one people probably have most experience with is the gambler’s fallacy. After losing more than expected, people think they’ll now be more likely to win.
I also like the Monty Hall problem and the birthday problem.
American alcohol is on the list of immediate tarrifs as well as orange juice, peanut butter, clothing, and cosmetics. There will be further tarrifs on dairy, beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables, steel, aluminum, cars, trucks, busses, and boats after a 21 day delay to give time for Canadian companies to adjust supply chains.
Tarrifs are simple, easy, and can be implemented immediately by the Prime Minister alone. All the other things listed in that comment are fine ideas, but require parliment pass laws, which is going to take time since we’re approaching an election. I don’t think it’s appropriate to wait months before even starting the debate in parliment about what we should do.
There’s also no guarantee any of those ideas would even pass into law. I doubt many politicians are keen on tearing up patent and copyright protection so Canadian companies can rip off American innovations.
Ah, remember when you could buy computer parts without them being covered in RGB glowing lights?
The question is why do laws that aren’t enforced exist. Gambling and porn bans are rarely enforced but exist mostly for virtue signaling. I wasn’t talking about speed limits.
On top of what others said there’s also just virtue signaling, like banning pornography or gambling.
Pens for $100. Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg joke. “I bought an expensive pen because I was tired of not caring when I lost it.”
The Conservative Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, is already doing that. I’ve heard his ads on the radio calling for Ontarioans to give him a majority government so he “can stand up to Trump”. The guy spent his time as Premier standing up to nurses and bike lanes. This new stand up against Trump shtick is just more faux populism.
All the first comments saying they browse by new… 🤔
What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.
And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?
German courts aren’t special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that’s the same everywhere, but it’s not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it’s specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.
It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can’t be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.
This site says:
One of the most critical measures in the preliminary proceedings is questioning the alleged crime participants and witnesses to what happened. No statement should be made without legal counsel at this stage (especially when the police open up to the suspect to interrogate them as an “accused”). Investigators are trained to ask questions that could put the suspect in a bind and are increasingly success-oriented. This often results in hasty, ill-considered and incriminating statements, which can be used against the accused in the main proceedings.
Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.
Every country on Earth? Is there someplace police accuse people of crimes and then argue why they’re wrong?
There’s a contract from 1648 that still pays interest today because the company that issued it still exists. Unless Ukraine or the UK cease to exist in 100 years this contract will absolutely be enforced.
Much of the economy only works because people believe in it. The UK had an economic crisis in 2022 when Liz Truss, Prime Minister for 50 days, passed a budget so terrible it tanked their stock market.
The budget included enormous tax cuts for the highest tax brackets, resulting in a £60 billion budget deficit, all while there was a cost of living crisis for the UK’s poorest. UK stocks plummeted so much over the thought that the Prime Minster had no idea how to manage the economy that it caused “safe” investments, like retirement funds, to start failing. The UK central bank stepped in and said they’d print money in order to keep safe investments liquid which likely stopped the UK from experiencing a great depression. Liz Truss resigned because of the fallout.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Trump hinting that the government might not honour their debts could collapse the economy.