Duolingo does have grammar lessons, they cover the parts of speech, rules, exceptions and interesting notes.

You actually have to click the grammar notes for each lesson, and many people skip it. Still it’s up the user, not sure why this myth persists.

If you get drunk, you’re not allowed to drive just because you haven’t been convicted of having consumed alcohol

I never said that’s how it worked.

I said that you only get punished after a conviction.

Which is exactly how drunk driving works. If you drive drunk, they cannot fine, imprison, or sanction you without that conviction.

Even the arrest and jailing has to stop if they take too long to press charges and get a court case. If they failed to do that, the drunk driver would go unpunished.

A firearm salesman can’t sell a weapon to someone if they know they smoke weed, even if there’s never been a drug conviction. In fact, the salesman can be arrested for knowingly selling to a drug user even if there’s no proof of drug use.

A firearm salesman is not the government deciding a punishment, they are a private entity that is legally required to use their own discretion.

The courts would rule whether he knowingly broke the law (selling to a drug user) separately.

The government would need a conviction to punish the drug user themselves.

They could punish the seller, even if the drug user was never convicted, if a court found the seller guilty (i.e. a conviction)

Without a conviction for the seller, they cannot be punished.

A tradesman can lose their state license for without ever having the police or the courts involved if they perform dangerous work or work knowingly without permits.

Yes, losing your licence doesn’t require conviction. Though there are avenues to appeal the licence removal in civil court.

This is because it’s considered civil not criminal.

An attorney can be prohibited from practicing law without having been convicted or even being charged with any crimes.

The Bar association handles this, they are not quite a government agency, despite being closely linked to the government.

And an act of insurrection automatically disqualifies someone from being an officer of the United States. It’s self-executing and always has been in both the language of the law and in actual use.

The supreme court obviously disagrees since they said they would review the case. That implies they consider some level of due process necessary before states can do this. Whether Colorado met those requirements is up for debate.

If that were true, the supreme Court wouldn’t have agreed to review Colorado’s decision.

“As much do process as needed” implies the case is over, not that it’s about to start. The real decision is up to the federal supreme Court, not the state supreme Court.

Due process means the courts treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

The supreme Court like likely let both on the ballot because neither have a conviction.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yes, economics is the #1 issue. People need money for housing and food.

Republicans put oil drilling in reconciliation, but democrats didn’t consider a $15 minimum relevant enough to be included.

When the good cop self-sabotages so much, some are less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they fail.

deleted by creator

People already have, long before it was even a popular program.

There’s marketplaces where you can buy and sell a lot of different things with BTC

deleted by creator

There’s nothing stopping you from using it to pay someone for a job or to buy groceries regularly.

Given the anonymity and tax benefit, most people doing this probably don’t talk about it.

Market at my last place offered discounts for cash payments. Wouldn’t be surprised if they took Bitcoin now, they have Bitcoin atms everywhere now.

There’s already a self-contained economy, nothing to prevent it from growing.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The other poster seems to be talking about using smaller divisions in BTC. Like trading half instead of one for a pizza, and then trading a tenth instead of half, and so on. Eventually using satoshis.

The price of an object in BTC gets smaller and smaller in BTC pricing.

That does happen, but they don’t understand the difference between that and the Fed diluting a dollar over time.

If I have 1 BTC when it buys one pizza, and then still have it when it buys 100 pizzas, my savings have grown.

If it takes $1 to buy a pizza one day, and years later takes $10 to buy a pizza, my USD savings have shrunk even if they are nominally the same.

that’s why people say to invest in BTC because the same exact holdings grow, rather than shrink like USD. Going by the votes on here, many people don’t understand that the rarity of a currency is half the equation in its value.

deleted by creator

Not at all, that’s a complete misunderstanding of how this works.

If they print more USD, it dilutes the savings people have in USD.

If people start using smaller denominations of BTC, then your savings hasn’t been diluted at all, the smaller denominations happens when 1 BTC becomes worth more.

There’s a limit to how much BTC can be made, there’s no such limit on government currencies.

deleted by creator

Do you think once they see the nets they are going to change their minds?