Josef Stalin killed millions of his own people, deliberately, even if you don't include the purges, political executions, or labor camps. The Ukrainian famine killed off 25% of the country's population. Overall excess mortality (excuding war) during his rule was 50-60 million people.

Mao Tse-tung may be the only killer of his own people to top Stalin, with the work camps, the Great Leap Forward (and forced famine), and the Cultural Revolution totaling somewhere between 50 million and 100 million dead. It's hard to know for sure, though, because so many people died, so many towns and villages were wiped out, and there were so many coverups, that there simply aren't any good records.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed off more than 20% of Cambodians - about 2 million people.

And of course, since you mention it, North Korea which has killed more than 2 million of its own people in work camps and executions - there's the 20% of Korean population killed that you are falsely trying to blame on the US and UK. These were people actually killed by North Korea as opposed to your "Well, there might have been some alternate future where the crazy dictator wouldn't have started a war or killed his own people if only the US had let an evil regime take over a US ally" attempt-to-shift-blame bullshit.

Have you ever heard of Senator Elizabeth Warren?
Long time "pro-net neutrality" advocate? The one that made it a major part of her presidential campaign?
The same Sen. Warren that spent the past few years trying to impose criminal penalties on 'misinformation' or 'lies' by her political opponents? You know, the same Sen. Warren that recently said

I didn’t write the loopholes you exploit, @amazon – your armies of lawyers and lobbyists did. But you bet I’ll fight to make you pay your fair share. And fight your union-busting. And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.

.

To people even loosely familiar with American politics, she would be familiar figure. I can't imagine why you wouldn't know about her.

Mere seconds before he grabbed the knife (which he had in his hand, by his own public admission), he had already been brawling with the police - punching, kicking, biting them. When they backed off to try to taze him, he went for the knife.

Tell me, what do you think he was going to do with that knife? Juggle it? Maybe carve a cute animal out of a nearby branch?

No, he'd already sexually assaulted his girlfriend, robbed her, attacked police, persisted in his violence through their attempts to use non-lethal means to subdue him, and taken up a lethal weapon in his hands. At that point, shooting him was not 'murder'.

When you are resisting arrest after violating a restraining order, sexually assaulting an ex-girlfriend, who you were robbing her before the police arrived, and have already attacked multiple police officers in the previous minute, then your right to bear arms may be slightly restricted.

In current parlance, an internet "troll" is a derogatory epithet for someone who says something that you don't like. An example of this is when people to 'online harassment by internet trolls' - clearly, people posting "GFY" on Twitter are not trolls by the decades-old definition of old internet users.

So these days, when you see 'troll', know that all it actually means is that the person using the name wants to target to shut up.

I bought two Razer mice ("DEATHADDER Elites") last year. They both developed sticky buttons within a few months, which is a common problem according to the forums. After getting both of them replaced, one developed the same problem again. At that point, Razer refused to do anything, instead offering to sell me the switch so I could replace it on my own.

I will not buy another Razer product after that. Which is too bad, since when it was working, the mouse was pretty nice.

This type of ignorance is part of why adults despair for the future.

You may complain about what Trump says, but he has been one of the most press-accessible Presidents in history. It's a good thing he does the rest of his talking on social media, or we'd never get him off the television.

This is just the Computer Scientist's version of theodicy.

The Super-Intelligent AI works in Mysterious Ways, inscrutable to the mere mortal minds of man!

Whooosh!

The problem is that you are advocating banning or silencing people based on their "hate" and "bile" - purely subjective terms. You, and your views, can just as easily fall into those categories; it all depends on who is allowed to define what falls into those categories.

If you are unwilling to abide by those rules if I am the one that makes the determination of what is or isn't "hate" or "bile", then the truth is that you don't want to be free of those things, you just want the power to enforce your views.

Except there are no infants involved in this - there people are adults.

There exists an astounding level of arrogance among some computer geeks and nerds, and this is an excellent example of it. These are adults that are fully competent to use open flames, buy houses, drive cars, make cares, operate businesses... but these sorts of attitudes treat them as infants too dumb to take care of themselves and instead demand that the Wise Nerd step in to protect them. This attitude wasn't cool in the 1800s, and it doesn't look any better in the 2000s either.

Thankfully, that's not how liability works - and it isn't how it should work. If you buy a product, it is up to you to use it correctly. If you use it incorrectly, any failures or damages are your responsibility. If you aren't smart enough to use it, then you should not have bought it or used it.

It's been 40 years since the PC went mass market; you should not be considered "tech savvy" if you know how to use or set a password. It is a basic feature of life for people of all ages. This is no more a matter for "experts" than the idea of using a phone without a cord.

I find your ideas offensive, you would be tyrant thug. I demand that you be censored, and take your hate and bile for free speech and its proponents to some disgusting place where only you and your ilk are allowed.

You seem to have not read the links I gave, while not understanding the link you gave.

"Taking premature babies into account" was compensating for the different definitions of the "live birth", not compensating for the rate of premature births among the entire population. It was also comparing the entire population even after making the definition adjustment. As long as you insist on trying to compare the entire population, you are ignoring the point a made and attacking a strawman.

The US has a teenage or old mother rate at more than 70 out of every 1000, while the UK runs at about 30 - less than half. The OECD average is 6-7 per 1000 - about 1/10th the US rate. Comparing the average age of the mother doesn't work, because both tails get thicker, leading to only minor changes in the population average.

Comparing the CDC and ONS data for England and Wales shows that the US has more than double the teenage births (and that's comparing 45yo). So, yes, the average age may be the same but the thickness of the populations most certainly is not. Your assumption is unwarranted and incorrect.

Again, using the CDC data, and using the ONS data, the per-age mortality rate for the US is lower than the equivalent age group in the UK - despite the fact that the UK has a more restrictive definition of a live birth than the US.

In general, you have consistently failed to grasp that the population average as a whole is not reflection of the average for individual subgroups. I've tried to explain this to you, but you came back with more of the same mistake.

Unless you are going to actually compare the infant mortality rates for the same age groups, you are not addressing my argument.

As I explained in my post that you clearly did not read, premature birth rates differ wildly based on the age of the mother.
The US has a much higher rate of births by teenage and old mothers.
This leads to a higher rate of premature births among all births.
This leads to a higher rate of infant mortality amongst the entire population of birth (premature and term).
However, the US still has a better survival rate for each individual development age group among births.

Let's put this in simple numbers:
A population has three groups, A, B, and C - each represents 1/3 of the total.
A has a value of 1; B has a value of 2; C has a value of 3.
The overall average for population 1 is 2.
A different population has the same groups (A, B, C) with the same values (1, 2, 3) - but in population 2, A is 1/6. B is 1/6, and C is 4/6.
The overall average for population 2 is then 2.5.
This is higher than pop 1, even though the groups have the same values - because the group sizes are not the same.

If you really don't understand this, then I'm not sure how I can explain it better.

Again, demographics - When a specific portion of the population has a higher rate, and that group is larger in one population than another, it pushes up the overall average, even if all other groups are exactly identical in rate.

To summarize once more,
1) there is a higher rate of teenage and >45yo mothers in the US than in other countries.
2) there is a higher rate of infant mortality among the children of teenage or very old mothers
3) the infant mortality rate for the children of teenage or very old mothers is lower in the US than the infant mortality rate for teenage or very old mothers in other countries.
This is how the US can have a higher overall infant mortality rate than some other countries, while still having a higher survival rate for each individual development block of children born.