Seems like the right way to display them, no? If the buns (and all the layers of ingredients) were stacked perfectly, you wouldn't see very much of the ingredients inside.
The US site doesn't use this placement strategy, though. The Japanese one looks better. No surprise there.
Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.
Most people in the US did not choose to become citizens until the mid 19th century. The process was much easier than naturalization today, though, presuming you were white and in some cases might be required to own property.
US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle. You had to go into a local court and show you lived in the US for a couple years, who would swear you in as a citizen. But most people didn't care about voting or holding office enough to bother.
> US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle.
Actually, my understanding is that the US did largely follow jus soli. What it wasn't was unconditional jus soli, but the principle was birth in the bounds of the US conferred citizenship except if positive law existed not conferring citizenship.
I think what's weird is comparing them based on the zeitgeist, photos, video, and sensationalism instead of whatever numbers are at hand. The fear and the danger are rarely the same.
Whether you think we should look at per-year numbers or the overall numbers, I'd say that most people count total progress of a thing moreso than the velocity, or the prices of things instead of the spot inflation rate.
> Obama spoke softly, carried a big stick, and hammered out a brilliant deal. Trump bragged loudly, tore up the deal, swung the stick he inherited, missed, and fell in the oil.
This is probably the best and most succinct -- and pithy -- take I've read as of yet.
Iran's regime sucked (still sucks), to be sure. This was frankly not all that much of an issue for the US. It was a big issue for other Arab nations in the area (not to mention for Israel), but I'm not sure why we should be doing their dirty work.
If the end result of all this is a large weakening in Iran's regime, a reduction in Iran's influence in the region, and (otherwise) a return to the status quo, I guess that's something of a victory. But it's far from clear that we'll even come out that well, and meanwhile we've murdered civilians, and spent American lives and war materiel. Not great. We should have left well enough alone.
"Iran's regime sucked" because they kicked out our western puppet? or is it because Iran is a a democracy, unlike "other Arab nations" (by the way iranian are as much arabs than you) or Israel ? (Note that I'm not fan of Iran culture, but I'm not fan of ingroup cultures either).
> because Iran is a a democracy, unlike "other Arab nations"
Iran isn't a democracy, it's an authoritarian theocracy that spreads terrorism throughout the Middle East, and that brutally oppresses it's own people[0]. The only objective of the regime is to stay in power, regardless of the costs imposed to Iran and other countries, and the only language they understand is violence.
> "do you think that if we managed our forests better, this could help?" (clearly talking about the crazy "raking the forests" Trump rhetoric)
Were they clearly actually talking about that? If that was their question, word-for-word, it's a good question! We are not managing our forests all that well. No, we shouldn't be doing Trump's dumbass raking "idea", but we should be doing controlled burns, at minimum.
> A lot of open source projects already have licenses that allow forking and selling the fork
If we go by the OSI's definition, a project that doesn't allow this is not "open source". So all open source projects -- not just "a lot" -- allow this.
The US site doesn't use this placement strategy, though. The Japanese one looks better. No surprise there.
reply