FriendOfDeSoto

I remember reading a headline somewhere that thieves returned a couple of snatched phones to the owners specifically because they were Androids.

The rest of the world has a much higher share of Android phones than the US. There was and still is stigma around being green bubble in text threads on iMessage. Apple is dominant at home. Teenagers refuse to date folks without iPhones. Etc.

This also depends on the phone and which version of the operating system it runs. I think both iOS and Android have snatch detection in their latest versions, i.e. the phone can realize it's been ripped from the hands and subsequently traveled fast away from the point of snatching. Phones are then supposed to lock so the thief doesn't gain access.

A good security option is not to have financial apps and credit card numbers in the clear on your phone, or to have this stuff hidden behind a fingerprint scan or other ID, if the phone is unlocked or not.

If you don't want to buy 13 guns to shoot a mugger with, as has been suggested in this thread, consider something as silly as a sturdy lanyard to anchor your phone to your person. Now you're only interesting to the criminals who will rob you at gun/knife point. The snatchers tend to look for easy marks. In the US, a vital defense against having your phone stolen is having an Android phone to begin with.

Constitutionally, it is spelled out in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

So foreign policy is principally a federal government domain, established by cases heard by the Supreme Court. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-1/ALDE_00001097/

There is a somewhat gray zone where neighbors can talk to each other on the state level, e.g. Maine and Quebec. But they will find themselves restricted by what the governments one step up have decided. I think certain states also are on friendly terms with other nations, probably to deepen economic ties. But that's more on the level of a city friendship than actual foreign policy.

Trump is vindictive and petty. He would take revenge somehow. Whether it is just a very STABLE GENIUS tirade on lies.social or trade sanctions or a threat to invade the country is anybody's guess. But they're all on the table and he's got the eternal memory of an elephant. That's why every leader knows they have to go in with some honey first. They pay him a compliment or bring something he wants or likes. Then they can play hardball if they have to but you gotta appeal to the frail ego first. And that's why few leadership people will call him stupid in public or even to his face. They will hide the stupid medicine in some rhetorical sugar until their country is economically and militarily independent from a Trump government.

I am no leader, praise the heavens, and I wouldn't call him stupid. He's uneducated in many areas outside real estate development. He's got the interpersonal maturity of a 4yo. But he is street savvy and media savvy. There's a reason why he is this popular with his followers.

Can the other developed nations mount a credible pandemic response without the resources of the USA?

Yes. Just to show you an example from the other end of the developmental spectrum: even North Korea made it through COVID virtually without any resources.

You speak English. There is an at least partially English speaking country to your North. There are more English speaking ones scattered around the world. Most cutting edge research in anything will eventually end up in an English version if it was from somewhere-elsistan originally. The US is/was not the only country with something like the CDC. If you google their counterparts I would not be surprised if you found a warning about a measles outbreak in Texas. The research will be done elsewhere; the US may only lose its leadership position in the field.

BTW I would call the US response to COVID-19 just as shambolic as any other country's. The only difference was maybe they could throw more money at the problem. And that they could do again.

No country will be fully prepared. Ever. We don't know what the next pandemic will be, we don't know when it will happen. The lab coats will have an idea but it's too vague to build policy around that in a world, where there continues to be no glory in prevention. Stockpiles will perish, emergency plans will gather dust, and we will all be shocked and surprised again.

Humanity was sort of lucky that two Turkish scientists were quick to realize they could use a DNA something something method, that was not held in the highest regard in scientific circles before COVID hit, to make a vaccine in record time. They did that in Europe.

Ultimately, this is not about what capital M Mastodon allows but what the instance the bot is on allows. I just read through the guidelines of what mastodon.bot allows (because it came up in my search) and I think you could get away with that there. A stream is ultimately promoting its creator, i.e. a person, so you might run afoul of that restriction in their rules. I'm not sure. And as I said, it would depend more on the instance the bot is on.

In general, I would support allowing this.

If we take "old allies" not so much as old friends but more as "previously allied with:" Japan was on the side of the allies in WW1 but was axis in round 2. Nazi-Germany invaded the USSR in spite of their peace pact. Napoleon and tsar Alexander of Russia were on somewhat friendly terms before Alex clandestinely rejoined the coalition against the French.

I think "projection" works. I thought of "external attribution" as well when I read this question.

I'm not an expert. I suppose the internet would be a mess of unexpected holes for a while. But since I don't know anything more productive than that I just wanted to ask: are you writing the next Bond movie script?

I think several factors play into its lasting popularity.

1. The series was written and first made into movies at a different time. A time when being a misogynists alpha male was aspirational for many, many more men. The unexpected success of the first movies created the foundation to an intellectual property that generations of mostly fathers introduced to their mostly sons. It never went away. Even in years where lawsuits prevented making new movies or when the latest installment of the franchise was considered controversial for whatever reason, the popularity stayed high. And the older the series gets, the more controversial everything becomes.

2. Very few movies have what I would call a great coherent plot. They are going through checklists: we need a bonkers villain, a weird henchperson, a fancy car, at least one love interest, a gadget, a plan for world domination, and a witty line or two. Throw in a location in the Caribbean or the snowy Alps and that's the formula. It's Batman from MI-6 in London, really. It's a comic book story that tries to seem somewhat realistic, in each movie's release year's contemporary time. And the more time passes the less jarring the obvious differences to reality become, and the more they are enjoyable as "leave your brain at the door"-popcorn-eating entertainment. Also, I think, the fact that many actors have played different roles over the years, sometimes overlapping with other cast changes, mostly unaddressed in the films why that happened, added to this "brain at the door"-ishness.

3. They've gone with the time - to an extent. Where Sean Connery bedded every (young) woman he met and discarded them with a pad on the butt saying things like "man talk," Daniel Craig's lady conquest numbers were much lower and the sex less gratuitous - within the formula. Pierce Brosnan's Bond was called a misogynist pig by his female boss. Under the stewardship of Broccoli/Wilson, the second generation in charge of the franchise, they have incrementally changed the formula.

4. Because the series is so long lasting, there is tons of free publicity in the media, e.g. who will be the next Bond? Will be be less sexist? Will the female lead be more than a conquest? They don't really need to buy ads for this. Also, there are plenty of companies willing to product place for a hefty price. If there ever was a time when the makers were considering if this was still of the time, the economic interests will surely push those progressive thoughts aside.

I think that if we lived in a world where the Ian Fleming idea had not been adapted into film during the early years of the cold war, nobody would greenlight this project today. And it is its entrenchment in popular culture that keeps it going.

The appeal is definitely more male but I know women who like Bond movies as well. I know this is very stereotypical: men look at the Aston Martin, the gadgets, and the boobs, women at the dresses, the pretty scenery, and how well the Bond girl stands up for herself. And while I'm sure that a subgroup of men looks at the Bond character as a role model, I would say the majority knows this is fiction and just a tad less comic-bookish than Ironman. It's the male version of a cheap romance novel on a silver screen with more mass appeal.

If this has not become clear from this dissertation: I'm a fan. I can enjoy these movies without wanting to revert to 1960s gender role models. I also know it's not for everyone.

I think you maybe be extrapolating here from too tiny a dataset. Type "tongue out selfie" into the search engine of your choice and be amazed at how many people have written dissertations on the subject. The simplified take is it started with teenage girls and spread from there.

Names in particular are under no obligation to follow established or common spelling or pronunciation patterns. A simple search on the engine of your choosing would've told ya that's the way it is pronounced. It is, of course, unusual. But they're doing it as close to right as they can for Ralph.