That some subs are liberal leaning doesn't make the site so. They're pulling the same kind of shit like Facebook where conservatives bitch and moan while they get away with far more than liberals do. Their calls for direct, specific violence towards specific targets are ignored while liberals rack up suspensions and bans for the slightest oblique mention of violence maybe not being entirely unjustified.
Now I'm talking about administration actions and site bans, but when it comes to subs intensely hostile to dissent who have zero tolerance for politics besides their own, r/conservative is light years beyond any of the mainstream "liberal" subs, where conservatives and dissenting opinions may get downvoted, but not banned, unless they break neutral rules about violence, name calling, slurs, threats, etc... which conservatives do far more often than liberals then wail and thrash like the pathetic little crybabies they are then lie and claim they were banned for "posting facts" or "their beliefs".

You didn't learn anything after Dems lost that big VA race because they tried that line while schools, not college/unis, had a bunch of stuff *explicitly, by name*, mentioning CRT in both teaching and student curriculum? But I guess a book with "Critical race perspectives" in the god damn title isn't CRT.
So embarrassing how we're using GOP tactics to lie about this.

I agree that Trump and conservatives are doing it with the goal of advancing white supremacy, but they succeed in no small part because affirmative action as typically implemented *is* racist, and people don't like that or the mendacious claims it's not. It's very uncommon to find it implemented as promised when it was initially upheld; that it consists only of deciding between two equally qualified people. Instead, nearly universally it involves different standards, like admissions -- you realize schools tried to claim Asian students just have objectively inferior personalities to explain their GPAs, SATs, and other more objective measures had to be so much higher, right? Read the briefs yourself.
In fact the excuses shifted over time. Used to be "yes, it's discrimination, but it's justified because of disadvantages from historical discrimination." It's understandable that many people believe applying different standards based on race is wrong, and it's undeniably racist and in violation of the CRA, unless you want to be even more ridiculous and start with the "only white people can be racist" crap.
So go on, keep doing your own gaslighting to support the "only present discrimination can make up for past discrimination" racism, and watch it empower openly white supremacist fascists like the GOP.

Yes, our government led by the stupidest, most ignorant leader in history, who's filling every leadership position with grossly unqualified people whose only value is being willing to openly praise the idiot in charge and implement policies designed to destroy the institution they lead, is really all about meritocracy and not just using that as a fig leaf for discrimination.
Look, I even agree that much the left unacceptably supports racial discrimination, but you're a delusional fucking moron if you think anything conservatives here do is advancing a neutral meritocracy instead of switching the discriminated races and destroying education and science.

Yup, that's a list of things conservatives have deranged ignorant views on, thanks.

Kernel anticheats are the equivalent of strip searching and digitally probing body cavities to prevent cheating in a real world event. Even high stakes, big dollar events don't put players through that. You sound like the type of person who thinks such a measure would be justified. It's not. Regardless of real world financial consequences, there's a line for "too invasive to be ethically justified" as a routine measure applied to everyone.
And they don't do Olympic level doping tests where someone watches you pee for every high schooler and club sports player. You'd have a better case if kernel anticheat was limited to major pro tournaments, but it's not.
But even those measures don't involve letting someone invasively examine your other activities.
You can fuck right off with this line of thinking that any possible measure is justified to investigate wrongdoing. You also think every computer should be a locked down walled garden to enforce DRM? After all, piracy has big financial implications! Just buy a system with no video playback ability! People like you remind me of those school officials who strip searched some little kid for maybe having Tylenol, and tell us if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear as you destroy privacy with mass surveillance.

Line must go up!
Being profitable doesn't matter. If they were making $1tn/yr net profit, they'd still constantly be looking for new ways to gouge their customers, cut materials cost, and cut payroll cost, because profit must always be increasing.

The surge pricing model also encourages more use in bad weather Waymo doesn't operate as much in, and they're still a lot more environment limited than rideshares, in terms of road conditions. So I wouldn't put much stock in the "may be underreported" excuse.

Uh, same circumstances as humans, mostly. It's not a defect that autonomous cars are still beholden to the laws of physics... If someone jumps out or swerves unexpectedly, the car can react faster but there's still a nonzero minimum stopping distance and constraints on how quickly and to where it can evade.

They were never upset about the price of eggs. Trump is deliberately making them more expensive and admitting as much, they still support him. It's the excuse they give so they don't look bad if they were to admit their real motives.

If crops grown on your own land for exclusively your own consumption is "interstate commerce", everything is. Abortions use federally regulated drugs purchased in interstate commerce, bam, nexus! Now I'm happy to overturn that insanity and the entire drug war with it, but thanks to that bald faced political overruling of the constitution by SCOTUS, there's no legal argument for any situation not being subject to regulation, and the only times they've held otherwise were clear policy outcome oriented decisions involving things miles closer to "interstate commerce" than the batshit insane Wickard and Raich cases.

I've found that when something includes an original stereo or 2.1 audio track, the levels are fine even on shitty TV speakers when I switch to it. No reason not to have these tracks. too many things have only Dolby super big dick 7.1 and Dolby big balls 6.1 as the two English tracks, when millions just use their shitty TV speakers.

But you see, DEI the woke mind virus and transgenderism, because immigrants in Biden crime family, and therefore Trump is correct and this is perfectly fine and making us great again!

As a liberal who wasn't convinced it could be ruled out, especially when people who knew better promoted lies like any sort of human intervention in development could be ruled out because one particular method could, or that WIVs level 4 facility being far from initial cases was solid evidence when the lab director herself said CoV research was conducted at BSL 2 and 3 prior to the pandemic (*that* facility was quite close to the initial cases)... and played nonsense semantics games about whether it was gain of function research...
Your claim is revisionist horseshit. Accidental or not *any* explanation involving the lab was being dismissed as baseless conspiracy theories. It filtered down from people who had a substantial motive to lie by having directly funded what they invented some ridiculous hair splitting hyper technical distinction between "gain of function research" and "research intended to add function but not increase virulence" to deny it was the former, and you're an uninformed moron for saying there was gain of function research going on.
Believe me it makes my skin crawl having to side with the right on anything, but it's a complete lie to claim an accidental leak wasn't treated just the same as the nonsense theories that it was a deliberately released fully synthetic bioweapon and anyone suggesting the odds weren't 0 or millions to one against wasn't dismissed as a far right conspiracy theorist or Russian bot.

Because SCOTUS justices on both sides have agreed that the constitution applies only so long as it doesn't make it too difficult for cops or interfere with the sacred cows of law enforcement ideology.
Justices from both sides won't hesitate to blatantly reject objective fact to ensure this... "Well every independent study shows and every independent expert agrees drug dogs don't work... but the police say they do and the company selling them says they pass their tests... and it would sure make things hard on cops... we'll take the word of the cops!" (Harris v FL)... or "Well, the government's own study here shows sex offenders have the 2nd lowest recidivism rate; but the cops say they have a uniquely high rate and everyone knows it's true, so studies be damned, they lose more rights because of high recidivism."
And don't forget the insanity of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless you're a cop. Then you need only think something is a crime. Whether it is doesn't matter for the purposes of detaining and searching someone, and if you find evidence of an actual crime, fair game!" (Heien v NC)