Your logic would suggest that the internet should not be covered by the idea of "free speech" or a "free press" because the context it was written in had no concept of a broad communications network that could span a nation, a continent, or the entire world.
Petulant spoiled brats? For standing up for civil rights? YOU may not believe it is an important right, but it is a right nonetheless, and one of several chosen to be specifically enumerated in the "supreme law of the land." I would submit that YOU, sir, and your lot, are the petulant spoiled brats. Reality is not what you want it to be, so you choose to make shit up and pat yourselves on the back because you believe it's for the greater good.
With regard to "well regulated" you mistake me. As you point out, "well trained" is the proper definition given the context and the time it was written, and I firmly believe that anyone who owns or uses a firearm should be able to operate one in a SAFE and effective manner (you'd probably be surprised to learn that that's the entire reason for the existence of the NRA, it's role as a lobbying organization in opposition to unconstitutional laws being a relatively recent addition, and driven in response to the unconstitutional laws of the 1960s (and, arguably, the 1930s)). I'd cheerfully support such a requirement, and indeed suggest that every military aged citizen, male or female, be so trained as a matter of course (they can do it when they turn 18, just like they have to sign up for selective service).
The above said, of course the 2nd amendment doesn't actually say "to own a gun, you have to know how to use it." It lays out a rationale (if I may translate, "a free state requires an armed citizenry trained in the use of those arms") and then the right itself, ("ya can't take the guns, no matter how much you want to.")
Lest you believe I am one of those crazy people that cannot be reasoned with, please be aware of the following: I fully support your right to work to amend the constitution to make the 2nd amendment a thing of the past. Your position does have merit and is worth having a conversation about. However, it is your tactics which make you contemptible--you seek to "redefine" words to make them mean the opposite of the original intent, while painting the other side as having done the same, and ignoring the historical record that is rather unambiguous on the subject. When called on it, you result to name calling, labeling those who disagree with you as immature, whiny brats.
In closing: look in the mirror. You're the problem. People like you are what gave us the budding police state we have today, by pretending that the plain language in the bill of rights means something completely different (i.e. "persons, papers, and effects" doesn't mean your email, or your phone records, or the log of websites you visit, and we don't REALLY need warrants, just a friendly call to the phone company or ISP). Think about it. The people who came up with those intrusions into your life are just. Like. You. They have a different pet cause, of course, but their tactics are identical.
When religion stands in the way of progress, religion is wrong. Simple as that.
Presupposing that all "progress" is good, and that religion is always bad surely is a simple position, in the sense of MW's 4th definition of the word.
Good, there are 3 different giant telescopes in early stages of construction. Only 2, or maybe 1, giant telescope are truly needed.
I'm sure they could just turn the one giant telescope around and look through the earth if they wanted to observe stars only visible from the other hemisphere.
Fuck having more than one view of the sky, amiright?
Mine must be broken--I've put thousands of rounds through them, and the only thing they've killed is a family pet my ex-wife made me put down rather than having the vet do it.
Where exactly do you see disrespect for the law? The original 2nd Amendment has been greatly expanded recently by removing all the traces of "well regulated" from it.
People on your side of the argument love to act like the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, and worry about how to interpret it, while ignoring the fact that the people who wrote the thing were pretty damn clear about what it meant, leaving plenty of writings behind for posterity. THAT is what OP means about disrespect for law. Anyone who cares to do any research can see EXACTLY what the intent of the amendment was, but you always want to interpret it to mean something exactly opposite.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...". There are others, including some that hew a little closer to the meaning of the words in, oh, the English language.
You don't have to "interpret." Go read what the people who wrote the thing thought about the subject--they left plenty of writings behind.
umm he is talking about deporting the poor to midwest/mexico and building a wall to keep them out. not commute.
The OP actually used the example of someone commuting to Palo Alto to pour coffee for $15 an hour, and the part of his post that I quoted suggested abolishing housing subsidies in favor of transit subsidies (so people could commute). Either you did not actually read what he said, or you just don't care because you're on the other side of the issue, so are trying to demonize the guy making the argument.
Reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Trying to frame the discussion to paint them as horrible assholes does NOT serve your argument.
3) Kill off public housing and food subsidies for people who live in high cost densely populated areas. Provide them instead with free bus fair to (1).
This sounds good in principle, but in practice would totally fuck the working poor by requiring them to suffer through multi-hour commutes to keep their jobs. I agree with your end goals, but ANY plan to get there HAS to have some kind of transition built into it, and that transition CANNOT be a short one. You're talking about changes that need to be made on the scale of decades.
If I restate your position slightly, it might help illustrate the scale of what you're proposing: "Have the tens of millions of poor people in urban areas all move somewhere else, or, alternatively, increase the costs of labor by 300%." There is NO scenario under which that works out well for ANYONE in the short term.
Hey look buddy, I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like 'what is beauty?' Because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems. For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean motherhubbard from tearin' me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer? Use a gun. And if that don' work, use MORE gun. Like this heavy caliber tripod- mounted little ol' number designed by me... Built by me... And you best hope...not pointed at YOU.
"Constitutional rights? Bah! Who needs 'em!" seems to be the watchword of the new millenium.
//unless they're gun rights, of course. The gun nuts get everything they want.
The SJW crowd are doing their level best to destroy the FIRST amendment (with the enthusiastic support of the "liberal" types who should be the ones on the front lines OPPOSING this bullshit) and you big beef is with people trying to defend the SECOND? In a thread about a systemic breach of attorney client privilege by government contractors (which, no sir, has never, ever, not possibly could ever lead to parallel construction, no sir)?
I'm suggesting that if what you're saying is correct (and I have no reason to disbelieve you, I know it's been done once already) then beefing up the ASW effort with autonomous drones would likely be an effective countermeasure. The bit about the towed array sonars was in response to your suggestion that subs could just go deep to avoid detection by a surface vessel.
Drones + towed arrays = improved fleet survival. Enough to matter? Unknown at this point.
Wait, so you're gonna react to a problem a year from now?!
"Late next year" is probably defined as "the start of next TV season" (i.e. September-October) most likely because if there are less commercials, then run times need to be increased, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass to do that to a scripted show in mid season. The real question is reruns: how are you going to take 22 minutes of content and stretch it to 24-25 minutes because you only have 5-6 minutes of ads anymore.
A well designed modern sub would never allow itself to be seen by any standalone fancy floating network device. Anything on the surface will not get depth at any power setting or just by been passive and super sensitive.
Think back to all the war games where underfunded, old subs sneak around with gifted crews from 2nd and 3rd rate nations to get into the middle of complex layers of the best surface ships the US can design and win every time:)
FWIW, OP is on the whole correct in what he has "heard" but is a bit unclear on the specifics. Migrant farm workers typically work on a "piece rate" where they get paid a fee per unit of production (bushel, or what have you) rather than a fixed hourly amount. They end up doing fairly well for themselves (often significantly more than minimum wage) but work their asses off to achieve it. Most people raised with a modern urban lifestyle who are hunting for a minimum wage job aren't looking to work that hard, which is why farmers don't want to hire them.
This work is also seasonal in nature--they can work for most of the year, but they're also travelling from region to region to stay employed (i.e. first they're picking cherries in michigan, then apples in pennsylvania, then oranges in florida, or whatever). This is NOT a stable life, and most people have no desire to live this way regardless of what the pay is.
A few weeks ago, NPR's Morning Edition did a pretty good story on some of the challenges farm workers (and their kids) face. It's pretty good reading/listening for the "they took our jobs" crowd (to be honest, I'm normally on their side of the debate, but on farm work in particular, they have it wrong).
it's also when all the social programs got defunded
Bullshit. No housing project ever succeeded. Now days they try to mix Section 8 housing into otherwise good communities, which results in nothing but increased crime. I've seen it first hand.
Which is a huge shame, since Section 8 (the way it was originally intended) should be one of the most successful welfare programs in US history, and one any conservative could get behind.
The original section 8 families were carefully screened and selected to find people who didn't want a hand out, but a hand up, with the intent of getting them out of bad neighborhoods and into an environment they could thrive. It was wildly successful in achieving its aims, and was actually a fairly inexpensive program. It was expanded drastically because of its success, and the criteria for entry into the program were lowered, with its original aims lost in the bureaucratic mess. Today, as you point out, it's just a way of exporting poverty and crime into previously stable neighborhoods (see Memphis for an example). It has also gone from being something that was a short term boost into a long term lifestyle.
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Section 8 is proof of that.
Have you ever been to India? The people you're talking about, the ones that work on the well manicured corporate campuses, are less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the Indian population.
That's the problem with large numbers... when talking about the Indian population, 0.1% is 12.5 million people. You might be one in a million, but that only means that there are 1200 of you in India, and 1300 more in China.
There's a quote attributed to both Lenin and Stalin along the lines of "when we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope to do it with," Honestly, that is why the east will eventually take over from the west. The amount of time, effort, and resources that the west has spent offshoring jobs has built some serious economic muscle in nations with staggeringly large populations. Eventually, they will eat our lunch.
You're welcome? It's not like we (citizens) have any say in what our government does. That's the greatest illusion in history. Federal elections are decided by who has the most money from "Special interests".
The older I get, the more I reject that notion. Sure, the media is manipulating you and election season is a three ring circus, and yes, there is undoubtedly election fraud that nudges things a bit, but in the end, the people still vote, and the people elect the government they deserve. Everyone pretty much agrees with YOUR statement, "special interests blah blah blah" but upwards of 90% of you (at least the ones that vote) KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE! What the fuck do you expect is going to happen?
Douglas Adams summed the situation up really well in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
For the first 12 years, OpenOffice/Staroffice ran only on Microsoft operating systems. It's a DOS/Windows program designed with a Microsoft style mindset, ported to Linux more than a decade after it was released. It's not The Unix Way. It's good and useful, and it's 100% a Windows program ported to Linux.
The above certainly does not apply to Gnumeric, which implements similar features in similar ways and was developed by people who are strong believers in the unix philosophy. Sometimes you need a screwdriver and not a hammer.
You've got my apologies, I assumed the grandparent post of what I replied to ("do everything poorly") was yours as well, as opposed to an AC. For what it's worth, I, too, love the UNIX philosophy in general (lots of unitaskers piped together) though this does tend to break down as those unitaskers become more complicated. I also have to say that this also fails when comparing MS Office against standard unix utils, when the real comparison is OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc. which implement similar features in similar ways (it's not like you sort a Calc spreadsheet by doing a cat ~/spreadsheet.ods | sort -k2,2 > ~/newsheet.ods or anything similar... you do it the same way Microsoft does).
Microsoft software DOES tend to be Swiss Army Knife. MS Word has THOUSANDS of menu and option items. I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
You've obviously never dealt with people who mail out 50,000 line spreadsheets and say, "the items in question are the highlighted rows." I had users dancing in the aisles when we gave them office 2007 which introduced the "sort by color" feature. That's pretty much the fundamental problem of bitching about MS Office: pretty much everyone agrees that only 5-10% of the feature set is ever used without ever acknowledging that everyone is using a different 5-10%.
I'm amused at being called an SJW. Suffice to say, I'm on the opposite side of that debate. With regard to your evidence, please see this for an example of what I am talking about. There's plenty more to be found.
people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
So join the conversation. Explain to the thin-skinned whiners how to distinguish between malicious threats and mock teasing.
You're not allowed to. Haven't you heard? Expressing an opinion contrary to the narrative is a micro-aggression that compromises the safe space. As such, it cannot be tolerated.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic would suggest that the internet should not be covered by the idea of "free speech" or a "free press" because the context it was written in had no concept of a broad communications network that could span a nation, a continent, or the entire world.
Petulant spoiled brats? For standing up for civil rights? YOU may not believe it is an important right, but it is a right nonetheless, and one of several chosen to be specifically enumerated in the "supreme law of the land." I would submit that YOU, sir, and your lot, are the petulant spoiled brats. Reality is not what you want it to be, so you choose to make shit up and pat yourselves on the back because you believe it's for the greater good.
With regard to "well regulated" you mistake me. As you point out, "well trained" is the proper definition given the context and the time it was written, and I firmly believe that anyone who owns or uses a firearm should be able to operate one in a SAFE and effective manner (you'd probably be surprised to learn that that's the entire reason for the existence of the NRA, it's role as a lobbying organization in opposition to unconstitutional laws being a relatively recent addition, and driven in response to the unconstitutional laws of the 1960s (and, arguably, the 1930s)). I'd cheerfully support such a requirement, and indeed suggest that every military aged citizen, male or female, be so trained as a matter of course (they can do it when they turn 18, just like they have to sign up for selective service).
The above said, of course the 2nd amendment doesn't actually say "to own a gun, you have to know how to use it." It lays out a rationale (if I may translate, "a free state requires an armed citizenry trained in the use of those arms") and then the right itself, ("ya can't take the guns, no matter how much you want to.")
Lest you believe I am one of those crazy people that cannot be reasoned with, please be aware of the following: I fully support your right to work to amend the constitution to make the 2nd amendment a thing of the past. Your position does have merit and is worth having a conversation about. However, it is your tactics which make you contemptible--you seek to "redefine" words to make them mean the opposite of the original intent, while painting the other side as having done the same, and ignoring the historical record that is rather unambiguous on the subject. When called on it, you result to name calling, labeling those who disagree with you as immature, whiny brats.
In closing: look in the mirror. You're the problem. People like you are what gave us the budding police state we have today, by pretending that the plain language in the bill of rights means something completely different (i.e. "persons, papers, and effects" doesn't mean your email, or your phone records, or the log of websites you visit, and we don't REALLY need warrants, just a friendly call to the phone company or ISP). Think about it. The people who came up with those intrusions into your life are just. Like. You. They have a different pet cause, of course, but their tactics are identical.
When religion stands in the way of progress, religion is wrong. Simple as that.
Presupposing that all "progress" is good, and that religion is always bad surely is a simple position, in the sense of MW's 4th definition of the word.
Good, there are 3 different giant telescopes in early stages of construction. Only 2, or maybe 1, giant telescope are truly needed.
I'm sure they could just turn the one giant telescope around and look through the earth if they wanted to observe stars only visible from the other hemisphere.
Fuck having more than one view of the sky, amiright?
Killing is a gun's sole utility.
Mine must be broken--I've put thousands of rounds through them, and the only thing they've killed is a family pet my ex-wife made me put down rather than having the vet do it.
Where exactly do you see disrespect for the law? The original 2nd Amendment has been greatly expanded recently by removing all the traces of "well regulated" from it.
People on your side of the argument love to act like the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, and worry about how to interpret it, while ignoring the fact that the people who wrote the thing were pretty damn clear about what it meant, leaving plenty of writings behind for posterity. THAT is what OP means about disrespect for law. Anyone who cares to do any research can see EXACTLY what the intent of the amendment was, but you always want to interpret it to mean something exactly opposite.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...". There are others, including some that hew a little closer to the meaning of the words in, oh, the English language.
You don't have to "interpret." Go read what the people who wrote the thing thought about the subject--they left plenty of writings behind.
I'll wait.
umm he is talking about deporting the poor to midwest/mexico and building a wall to keep them out. not commute.
The OP actually used the example of someone commuting to Palo Alto to pour coffee for $15 an hour, and the part of his post that I quoted suggested abolishing housing subsidies in favor of transit subsidies (so people could commute). Either you did not actually read what he said, or you just don't care because you're on the other side of the issue, so are trying to demonize the guy making the argument.
Reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Trying to frame the discussion to paint them as horrible assholes does NOT serve your argument.
3) Kill off public housing and food subsidies for people who live in high cost densely populated areas. Provide them instead with free bus fair to (1).
This sounds good in principle, but in practice would totally fuck the working poor by requiring them to suffer through multi-hour commutes to keep their jobs. I agree with your end goals, but ANY plan to get there HAS to have some kind of transition built into it, and that transition CANNOT be a short one. You're talking about changes that need to be made on the scale of decades.
If I restate your position slightly, it might help illustrate the scale of what you're proposing: "Have the tens of millions of poor people in urban areas all move somewhere else, or, alternatively, increase the costs of labor by 300%." There is NO scenario under which that works out well for ANYONE in the short term.
Hey look buddy, I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems.
Not problems like 'what is beauty?' Because that would fall
within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve
practical problems. For instance, how am I gonna stop some
big mean motherhubbard from tearin' me a structurally
superfluous new behind? The answer? Use a gun. And if that
don' work, use MORE gun. Like this heavy caliber tripod-
mounted little ol' number designed by me... Built by me...
And you best hope...not pointed at YOU.
If you can get rid of the requirement for a pocket of air, you make surviving the pressures of deep water vastly easier and cheaper.
Not having a pocket of air sure makes changing depth a bitch, though.
"Constitutional rights? Bah! Who needs 'em!" seems to be the watchword of the new millenium.
The SJW crowd are doing their level best to destroy the FIRST amendment (with the enthusiastic support of the "liberal" types who should be the ones on the front lines OPPOSING this bullshit) and you big beef is with people trying to defend the SECOND? In a thread about a systemic breach of attorney client privilege by government contractors (which, no sir, has never, ever, not possibly could ever lead to parallel construction, no sir)?
I'm suggesting that if what you're saying is correct (and I have no reason to disbelieve you, I know it's been done once already) then beefing up the ASW effort with autonomous drones would likely be an effective countermeasure. The bit about the towed array sonars was in response to your suggestion that subs could just go deep to avoid detection by a surface vessel.
Drones + towed arrays = improved fleet survival. Enough to matter? Unknown at this point.
Wait, so you're gonna react to a problem a year from now?!
"Late next year" is probably defined as "the start of next TV season" (i.e. September-October) most likely because if there are less commercials, then run times need to be increased, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass to do that to a scripted show in mid season. The real question is reruns: how are you going to take 22 minutes of content and stretch it to 24-25 minutes because you only have 5-6 minutes of ads anymore.
A well designed modern sub would never allow itself to be seen by any standalone fancy floating network device. Anything on the surface will not get depth at any power setting or just by been passive and super sensitive.
If only there were some way to pull your hydrophones on multi-kilometer long cables and allow them to sink below the thermocline then maybe such a vessel would be useful...
Think back to all the war games where underfunded, old subs sneak around with gifted crews from 2nd and 3rd rate nations to get into the middle of complex layers of the best surface ships the US can design and win every time :)
If only there were a way to track submarines using autonomous drones to supplement the destroyers in the carrier's screen you might be able to change that...
FWIW, OP is on the whole correct in what he has "heard" but is a bit unclear on the specifics. Migrant farm workers typically work on a "piece rate" where they get paid a fee per unit of production (bushel, or what have you) rather than a fixed hourly amount. They end up doing fairly well for themselves (often significantly more than minimum wage) but work their asses off to achieve it. Most people raised with a modern urban lifestyle who are hunting for a minimum wage job aren't looking to work that hard, which is why farmers don't want to hire them.
This work is also seasonal in nature--they can work for most of the year, but they're also travelling from region to region to stay employed (i.e. first they're picking cherries in michigan, then apples in pennsylvania, then oranges in florida, or whatever). This is NOT a stable life, and most people have no desire to live this way regardless of what the pay is.
A few weeks ago, NPR's Morning Edition did a pretty good story on some of the challenges farm workers (and their kids) face. It's pretty good reading/listening for the "they took our jobs" crowd (to be honest, I'm normally on their side of the debate, but on farm work in particular, they have it wrong).
I'm inclined to blame the Republicans
This is decidedly unhelpful, and is part of the reason that we can't have nice things.
Oddly enough, everything related to Section 8, from inception until the present day, happened under a republican president with a democratic congress
it's also when all the social programs got defunded
Bullshit. No housing project ever succeeded. Now days they try to mix Section 8 housing into otherwise good communities, which results in nothing but increased crime. I've seen it first hand.
Which is a huge shame, since Section 8 (the way it was originally intended) should be one of the most successful welfare programs in US history, and one any conservative could get behind.
The original section 8 families were carefully screened and selected to find people who didn't want a hand out, but a hand up, with the intent of getting them out of bad neighborhoods and into an environment they could thrive. It was wildly successful in achieving its aims, and was actually a fairly inexpensive program. It was expanded drastically because of its success, and the criteria for entry into the program were lowered, with its original aims lost in the bureaucratic mess. Today, as you point out, it's just a way of exporting poverty and crime into previously stable neighborhoods (see Memphis for an example). It has also gone from being something that was a short term boost into a long term lifestyle.
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Section 8 is proof of that.
Have you ever been to India? The people you're talking about, the ones that work on the well manicured corporate campuses, are less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the Indian population.
That's the problem with large numbers... when talking about the Indian population, 0.1% is 12.5 million people. You might be one in a million, but that only means that there are 1200 of you in India, and 1300 more in China.
There's a quote attributed to both Lenin and Stalin along the lines of "when we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope to do it with," Honestly, that is why the east will eventually take over from the west. The amount of time, effort, and resources that the west has spent offshoring jobs has built some serious economic muscle in nations with staggeringly large populations. Eventually, they will eat our lunch.
You're welcome? It's not like we (citizens) have any say in what our government does. That's the greatest illusion in history. Federal elections are decided by who has the most money from "Special interests".
The older I get, the more I reject that notion. Sure, the media is manipulating you and election season is a three ring circus, and yes, there is undoubtedly election fraud that nudges things a bit, but in the end, the people still vote, and the people elect the government they deserve. Everyone pretty much agrees with YOUR statement, "special interests blah blah blah" but upwards of 90% of you (at least the ones that vote) KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE! What the fuck do you expect is going to happen?
Douglas Adams summed the situation up really well in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
For the first 12 years, OpenOffice/Staroffice ran only on Microsoft operating systems. It's a DOS/Windows program designed with a Microsoft style mindset, ported to Linux more than a decade after it was released. It's not The Unix Way. It's good and useful, and it's 100% a Windows program ported to Linux.
The above certainly does not apply to Gnumeric, which implements similar features in similar ways and was developed by people who are strong believers in the unix philosophy. Sometimes you need a screwdriver and not a hammer.
You've got my apologies, I assumed the grandparent post of what I replied to ("do everything poorly") was yours as well, as opposed to an AC. For what it's worth, I, too, love the UNIX philosophy in general (lots of unitaskers piped together) though this does tend to break down as those unitaskers become more complicated. I also have to say that this also fails when comparing MS Office against standard unix utils, when the real comparison is OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc. which implement similar features in similar ways (it's not like you sort a Calc spreadsheet by doing a cat ~/spreadsheet.ods | sort -k2,2 > ~/newsheet.ods or anything similar... you do it the same way Microsoft does).
Microsoft software DOES tend to be Swiss Army Knife. MS Word has THOUSANDS of menu and option items. I just right-clicked a random place on my screen and saw that Excel sorts on FONT COLOR.
You've obviously never dealt with people who mail out 50,000 line spreadsheets and say, "the items in question are the highlighted rows." I had users dancing in the aisles when we gave them office 2007 which introduced the "sort by color" feature. That's pretty much the fundamental problem of bitching about MS Office: pretty much everyone agrees that only 5-10% of the feature set is ever used without ever acknowledging that everyone is using a different 5-10%.
I'm amused at being called an SJW. Suffice to say, I'm on the opposite side of that debate. With regard to your evidence, please see this for an example of what I am talking about. There's plenty more to be found.
people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
So join the conversation. Explain to the thin-skinned whiners how to distinguish between malicious threats and mock teasing.
You're not allowed to. Haven't you heard? Expressing an opinion contrary to the narrative is a micro-aggression that compromises the safe space. As such, it cannot be tolerated.
I wish I were being sarcastic, but I'm not. :(
Yeah, and also "1000 cubic meters" is more accurately called "a cubic kilometer". Yeah.
Even more accurately, it's 1/1000000th of a cubic kilometer.