It’s also possible to have Windows log in as a specific user at boot, without user input. Regardless of operating system, your logged on session is in the context of some user account, whether you interactively log in or the system does it for you.

The PIN is stored locally on the machine only. It doesn’t get synced with anything anywhere. It’s actually much safer to use a PIN for authentication because it’s four digits that you (well, maybe not you) don’t have to write down, and the only time it works is on the physical machine. The user account password can be long and/or complex, but if you’re only ever authenticating at the keyboard, all you have to remember is the PIN.

Now that’s etiquette.

The Breakfast Gun goes on whichever side the diner’s firing hand is.

Edits below!

After some discussion and reflection, I agree with @Zachariah@lemmy.world that the Breakfast Gun would indeed go on the left, “to show you plan for a peaceful meal.”

Furthermore, presentation of Firearms depends on the level of dining:

At a polite table, guests are expected to lay their Meal Arms down holstered, so as not to soil the table linens. Placing a Meal Arm directly on the tablecloth is a sign of disrespect.

At a formal table, a Firearm Napkin will be provided for each diner. This allows diners to display their Meal Arms openly without soiling the linens.

At a “high table,” Meal Arms will be provided by the host. These Arms, while fully functional, are adorned with many engravings and flourishes, as a demonstration of the host’s status, and the diner’s status as a guest at the table.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Even on brand new cars, there are plenty where losing (burning) a quart of oil between changes is “within specifications.” The engine is likely going to burn a little bit of oil just because, and you’ll be lower again soon enough.

That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.

Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.

Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”

Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.

Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.

Doesn’t matter, that’s not the point. Delay and chaos are the point.

By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

Since we’re talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.

And to follow up on @teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world’s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.

Unless you’re president.

“Adult ostrich leg for scale.”

I don’t think it matters whether the exchange of value involves currency or not.

There are things that most people find to be unethical to “sell” (exchange for value in a transaction). Those include actual human beings (slavery), military or political influence (bribery), and murder.

I believe that sex work in often included in that list because of a lengthy deep history of protection of “bloodlines.” Of course, there has always been sex work, but those who offered such services - especially women - were by definition unconcerned about their own “bloodline,” which must then mean that their “bloodline” was not worth protecting. That meant that providers of sex work were necessarily “lower” people.

Today, and especially in the global West, the notion of “bloodlines” is more associated with bigotry than high status. That’s why we’re calling it “sex work” now instead of “prostitution,” for example - and sex work is more socially acceptable now, even if it’s not super high on that scale. Because that cultural thing about “bloodlines” is well-entrenched and runs very deep.

I initially thought Boeing was buying Spirit Airlines.

… the ABC entered “Miscellaneous Ad Interim Permits,” which allow the facilities to continue serving alcohol until a hearing on the renewals is held.

So, still no consequences.

I’m gonna go with absolutely.

Wasn’t it already decided that police are not obliged to help anyone? How can this go anywhere?

Let’s see … seven letters, starts with an F, ends with a T …

Fuckwit?

That you know of.