You're literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it's pretty easy to create websites. It's purely optical, you're not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

If you've spent any time on the "dark web" this is super-obvious. They all love encryption, and most software developers are completely incompetent when it comes to encryption so backdooring an app is trivial. Hell, even well-known crypto libraries have implementations that rely on clearly false assumptions.

Pretty standard in manufacturing sector. There are so few people with the skillset and reliability to operate a factory, that they perpetually pay out overtime because they really have no other option.

This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.

Poor hygiene, teeth grinding, and accidents (from being neurotic on meth and falling, running into things).

If the building was in fact "boarded up", then it might be hard to argue that it was someone's home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.

It's okay. The thing is when running an attack are you going to permutate through every combination of characters, or are you going to use words from a dictionary first? correcthorsebatterystaple (not a dictionary word) is better than antidisestablishmentarianism (a dictionary word) but in a realistic attack concatenating dictionary words is going to be the next step.

"so it does seem like the power to do this is electoral branch power and not in the legislative branch"

Quite poor evidence for your conclusion. FDR tried to pass legislation to expand the SCOTUS, and was interpreted as trying to manipulate the court by his own party, which is why it was blocked.

Court expansion has always been done by Congress, it's interpreted as an extension of it's power to create courts.

What? Tropical regions regularly get that hot, are we supposed to believe that humans die off during the day and get replaced in the night?

I live in Maricopa county, and while yes people do die from the heat, it's not really a substantial amount (about 400 out of over 4 million). It's almost always the elderly or people with severe health problems.

Pretty sure syntax is the only one that is even related to what a language is. All the rest are just ecosystem development primarily effected by popularity.

"What gain does someone get from unnecessarily punishing him longer?" Safety. If you have someone who commits a premeditated murder (insane or not). Then granting them the opportunity to do it again is a serious risk.

Additionally, schizophrenia doesn't just completely go away. Most cases are episodic, the fact that he is fine now does not mean he's "cured". You at the very minimum need to be able to force continuous treatment until his death.

The fact that punishing people serves little utility, doesn't mean that you should release murderers. The fact that protecting society by imprisoning people, "punishes" the people does not mean that you shouldn't protect society by imprisoning people.

This doesn't matter. The question is whether a ban constitutes a greater social harm than legalisation. The fact that people can evade the ban doesn't matter, after all murder is illegal but people still do it (at a much lower rate).