I think you're missing the point of the -porn suffix. Its not supposed to convey "the study of" or "images of". Its meant to convey that viewing it is satisfying in some primitive/emotional/aesthetic way. NaturePorn isn't just "pictures of nature", it's "pictures of nature that suck me in and make me want to see more". In that regard, the comparison to sex is intentional.
I used to consider myself republican, and I think I'm still closer to republican than democrat. I prefer small government, which is at least sometimes a republican ideal. I am also against identity politics of any kind, so I am against affirmative action. I am in favor of gun rights, with regulations that allow for appropriate tracking of who has guns where, how they are stored, how they are transported etc. However, regulations that prevent particular people from owning guns or ban any particular weapons should be very conservative. Even felons should regain gun rights after an appropriate period of time. Only ridiculously dangerous weapons, like nukes, should be outright banned. Stuff like full auto weapons should be legal, but restricted to only be stored at a gun range or something. As far as LGBT goes, I don't think the government should have anything to do with them. Let them do what they want, let people react how they want (as long as it isn't violent of course, which is already illegal under other laws). I've never been really sure about abortion. My gut reaction is to just let people do what they want, but I struggle to logically justify it as anything but murder. Not to mention the impracticality of banning it.
I wouldn't really call myself a republican anymore though. This is largely because of the religious aspects. I don't know if republicans have actually become more authoritarian or if my perception has just changed, but either way they don't seem to prioritize the same things as me anymore. Things like right to repair, net neutrality, and E2EE are important to me, but they don't align with that at all. The party also keeps embracing identity politics, just with different identities than their opposition. Religion should be a non-factor from a governmental perspective. It doesn't need any special protections, just to be ignored.
If I had to call myself something, I guess I would be a 'libertarian socialist', however much of an oxymoron that seems to be. For instance, I like the idea of UBI, largely because it would allow almost all welfare/social programs to be eliminated (including social security). Doing so would reduce government control, because they no longer have an ability to tweak who gets what, since everyone gets the same amount.
In the first couple panels I can't stop seeing her mouth like a mustache
I love that they keep saying stuff like "introducing Ubuntu to the Christian community", as if they couldn't already use it.
Does this not work?
I think you can do the same in the post
Well letters don't really have a single canonical shape. There are many acceptable ways of rendering each. While two letters might usually look the same, it is very possible that some shape could be acceptable for one but not the other. So, it makes sense to distinguish between them in binary representation. That allows the interpreting software to determine if it cares about the difference or not.
Also, the Unicode code tables do mention which characters look (nearly) identical, so it's definitely possible to make a program interpret something like a Greek question mark the same as a semicolon. I guess it's just that no one has bothered, since it's such a rare edge case.
That's not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn't the same thing as saying free speech wouldn't apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
You can't set reminders if you never knew the interview existed. It's still their fault, but it's an easy mistake to make.
What if you attached two one-way pigeons together to make a two-way pidgeon? It would probably take a piece of string, and a coconut...
That is needlessly pedantic. I have never heard of anyone using the word pornography to imply legality or moral acceptability. There is no such thing as "legitimate" CP, so there is no need to specify that it's not ok every time it is mentioned. No one in their right mind would presume he's some kind of CP supporting monster for failing to do so.
I'm pretty sure the baseline questions are things they already know the answer to. Like what's your name, where were you born, etc. So lying about them would be obvious.