Oysters got me too. I went to the ER thinking my appendix was bursting because the stomach cramps were so painful.

I still like the slippy little bastards, but I’m very cautious about where and when I order them now.

My great aunt was named Ute, I’ve never seen anyone else (in the US at least) with that name.

BAYBAY!

Do you face the wall?

Asking the real questions.

My impulse would be to say something like, “excuse me, but the gentleman behind me is still waiting in line!” in a loud enough voice to draw a bit of attention. Gives the cashier space to pretend they didn’t notice him while letting him know you noticed that shit and you’re not OK with it. Also gives other cashiers and patrons nearby the opportunity to be cool and let him jump in line or help him on another lane. As long as it’s focused on the rude behavior of closing a lane without ringing up everyone in the queue, hopefully not too embarrassing for the poor dude behind you.

That cashier was a fucking dickhead. Not your fault you didn’t react in the heat of the moment, that would catch me off guard too!

Spinosaurus!

Gigantic crocodile-faced sail-finned bitey boy supreme.

At least 5

She’s a child too, right? Like 12 or something?

That’s not how immunity works. It’s not a defense at trial. It’s presumptive, and prevents you from even filing charges. If you look at my screenshot above, their stated intent is to protect the president from having to go through trials.

What trial court? He’s immune from prosecution.

Look, I recommend reading the decision, especially the first few pages, instead of basing your opinions on what you think makes sense. I’m done trying to convince you about what’s in the document, it’s there for you to read if you actually care and aren’t just arguing in bad faith.

So how do they prosecute then? If the president commits a crime, let’s say he accepts a bribe for a pardon, you aren’t allowed to bring a prosecution unless a court deems the act unofficial. And the court isn’t permitted to find that the act was unofficial because the bribery is merely an allegation and hasn’t been proved. And you can’t prove the allegation because you can’t prosecute a president for official acts.

It’s all over the Syllabus section, but here’s a specific quote:

Unfortunately I think you’re missing something here. The court ruled that the president has immunity. Like the kind of immunity diplomats get in foreign countries that enables them to run over people in their cars. Immunity as a concept only makes sense if the action performed is actually illegal. Nobody can be prosecuted for legal actions. The president is now unprosecutable for both legal AND illegal actions.

It’s a nonsensical and horrifying ruling. The fact that the president would be violating his oath of office doesn’t cancel out the immunity, it just makes the crime that much more disgusting, and the impossibility of justice that much more galling.

Are you implying OP and the chickadee are in cahoots?

Hahaha yes

We had a local grocery chain get bought out by whole foods (before it was amazon). They went from 80% bullshit homeopathic vitamin shit and 20% old rotting produce to stores with actual (if overpriced) food. I’m sure the local vegans and crystal mommies were sad, but I thought it was a huge improvement.

Shoes in the house is very regional. I live in Colorado and everyone takes off their shoes just inside the door when visiting. The only exception would be like if someone came to deliver a piece of furniture or something where they need foot protection. Maybe it’s more common where it doesn’t ever snow, to leave them on?

Making democracy harder is definitely part of it. Elections are super regional in the US, so states have a ton of control. If a state elects a state government controlled by Party A, that party has a lot of incentive to make it harder for members of Party B to vote next time. So if Party B is mostly young and working class, you make it so elections take place when those people are stuck at work. If Party A is super religious, you make sure that voting spots are near (or inside) churches. If Party B is less likely to have access to a stable address or a driver’s license, you make registering to vote without those difficult, and you maybe wipe the voter rolls occasionally and require re-registration.

The goal is retaining power and not on strengthening democracy. It’s fucked up, and it’s going to get worse as each party is forced to continue escalating. You can’t fix the system without power, and you can’t get power without undermining the system. We all know something in this country is deeply broken, but we hate and distrust each other too much to work together to fix it.

I’m still not sure why there’s a regional difference, my guess is that it’s a quirk of history. We’re more used to it in the US, and there are benefits for the owners of the public toilets, so they don’t change.

How did we get so used to it? I’m no toilet historian but it could be a (horrible, evil) company had a near monopoly on stall design during a formative part of our architectural history. Could just be the newness and utilitarianism of a lot of American architecture in general. We kind of sprung up overnight and so sometimes bad ideas got caught up in that wave of “progress” and became the norm due to being in the right place at the right time, and not really because they were good ideas or ideas that worked. Tipping culture, tax added at the till, and other weird Americanisms could all have similar root causes! Once you’ve gone down the route of something pro-business and anti-consumer, and gotten most people to accept it as normal, there’s no going back in a capitalist society.