Why does that make him look like Rodney Dangerfield?

That "school of thought" is just flat-out wrong. The Bill of Rights doesn't say what rights people have; it says what Congress cannot do. When Congress can't do it at all, who it can't do it to is irrelevant.

No it isn't. Tolerance is a social contract; if you don't abide by it you don't get to be protected by it. Simple as.

[insert obligatory Wilhoit quote]

I want him to realize everything as quickly as possible.

Also I'm not disagreeing with you.

I wouldn't have picked Bernie for President (unless of course he was the nominee, I certainly wouldn't vote for the Reich Wing!)

unless of course he was the nominee

Ex-fucking-actly.

It's amazing how many liberals will berate leftists to "vote blue no matter who" out of one side of their mouths and then screech that "Bernie couldn't win" out the other, even though the exact same arguments they tried to use in favor of Kamala would have equally applied to Bernie if he had been the nominee.

And the reality is, Bernie would've have peeled off huge swathes of disaffected/anti-establishment/accelerationist Trump voters that Kamala had no hope of reaching (especially after pivoting towards conservatism).

AOC was blocked until now by not being at least 35 years old. Approve of that condition or not, at least it's legitimately in the Constitution (unlike the bullshit that torpedo'd Sanders).

In my city, they deliberately designed underpasses with minimal space like that not only to save money, but also because they were at the border between white and black neighborhoods and making it harder for carless people to get through helped enforce segregation. And even now, when they put bike lanes in, they end at such historical barriers because it's "too expensive" to widen them and taking space from cars is out of the question. In other words, they're still perpetuating the harm of segregation to this day.

I'm pretty sure that gif is him arriving to work, not getting home from it.

But that doesn't deserve to count as a separate distro. At best it's just a variant, like the relationship between Kubuntu and Ubuntu.

Online services going away is fine. That’s been a thing that’s happened for years with other games. But the game should still remain playable in some fashion. If it becomes fully inaccessible at the end of life, customers have a legitimate reason to be upset.

It's not even just that. Society at large has an even more legitimate reason to be upset, because the whole social contract by which we agreed to even grant the publisher copyright in the first place was predicated on the work eventually entering the Public Domain. Destroying the work to prevent that from happening is more truly "theft" than "pirating" copies of it could ever be!

The server component of online games ought to be required by law to be submitted to the Library of Congress for eventual release to the public.

there are huge outstanding questions on the nature of ownership

There really aren't, though. There is only the well-established and correct understanding of it as embodied by things like the Uniform Commercial Code, and lying criminals trying to gaslight us into letting them steal our property rights.