Melllvar

Whenever guillotines are brought up I like to point out that ~90% of the people guillotined during the French Revolution were regular commoners. And the last guy to be guillotined was the guy who had been in charge of deciding who to guillotine next.

Software is like a gas: it expands to fill its container.

All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Wouldn’t air travel account for more transcontinental passenger traffic than cars or trains?

For one, the shark is not at fault. The swimmer is. Which doesn’t really fit the overall message.

Yuh

“Old money” vs. “New money” is a particularly American concept, though.

Your nervous system has finite bandwidth. The extra movement and sensation signals drown out the “need to pee” signal, making it seem less urgent. It’s also why we rub the area around minor injuries to relieve pain.

AFAIK California doesn’t require a license for ebikes.

Assuming it survives the fall to the bottom of the elevator shaft, the building management should be able to retrieve it for you.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

Parent: Say “dad”

Baby: “Dad”

Don’t leave us hanging. Who won the argument?

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

You should cut diagonally. If it makes a sandwich better, imagine what it can do for a novel.

That’s what dihydrogen monoxide poisoning does to average IQs.