1rre

The thing with PE is they only invest what they're willing to lose, which the vast majority of their investments do, but the tiny fraction that don't make enough money to fund profits and cover losses.

If 95% of companies in the stock market lost money, that'd be the end of days, but that's because generally once you graduate to an IPO you have to be pretty profitable.

The whole point of a pardon is "we know you did the crime, but don't think you should be punished." It can only come about if there's an ulterior motive, like corruption or if you agree to work with the government towards their goals, initially working on dangerous projects etc. Allowing it to be overturned later would undermine that as it wouldn't make the danger worth it.

Essentially: it's not designed as a change from North/East/South/West, it's designed as a from-scratch way to refer to those directions.

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West, so let's say East is "Sun" and West is "Setting-Sun."

Polaris/The North Star is in the North, so let's call that direction "Star" and the other direction "No-Star."

When you say "Setting-Sun-Sun-Star," you're saying the direction is more similar to the path the sun takes through the sky than it is to the North Star, and in the direction the sun sets.

16 directions is pretty arbitrary anyway though, usually 8 is enough and then you don't have the confusion of repeated words.

I was assuming a conlang situation where "north" referred more to the axis, rather than the direction.

Anti-north-north would be more "reversed-vertical-vertical" meaning it's reversed vertical (south), and closer to the vertical axis than the horizontal axis. North would just be "vertical" without being reversed.

In all cases, 2 at most.

North
North-north-east
North-east
North-east-east
East
Anti-north-east-east
Anti-north-east
Anti-north-north-east (south-north-east is impossible so the second anti would be redundant)
Anti-north
Anti-east-anti-north-north (reversed word order to distinguish it further)
Anti-east-anti-north
Anti-east-east-anti-north
Anti-east
Anti-east-east-north
Anti-east-north
Anti-east-north-north

anti-north-northeast doesn't sound unreasonable, but that's being logical instead of just thinking about two directions, as written in text, as OP is

I don't think it's ok.

I think it's not the state's job to dictate whether people can do it. I have the exact same opinion for cheating.

It depends how you define "racial hate" and how you define mental or social harm. I also do mean social harm, not societal, meaning to catch things like sunset communities (ie restricting where people can live, or where they can go), rather than "society is worse off because of people's opinions."

Again, in my opinion, it depends on intent. If you make a post on your blog with 200 followers saying "I'm tired of X race moving to my city," I don't think that should be illegal, even if it is disgusting behaviour. If you post it to (eg) a community group for those people, I'd say it should be illegal.

That said, I'm very liberal on policing, so believe that the state shouldn't be responsible for policing morality, which people may not like when they realise it involves making things that are pretty much objectively immoral legal, regardless of what they are.

I would say intent matters and while it's impossible to truly determine it, we still have a distinction for murder/manslaughter and negligence.

If a politician lies or hides something for personal gain, that should be illegal, but there's so much stuff the state does where it's best if the general public don't know, public order would probably break down pretty quickly otherwise.

Same with racial hate. If it's just stating an opinion, fine, I probably don't agree but go ahead. If you're actively trying to harm (mentally, economically, socially or physically) that group, or inciting others to do the same, then that's not fine.

Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.

Eh, there's a lot of blending of conjecture, opinion and fact all presented as truth, and their handling of mistakes could be better - they've openly said if they consider a mistake to be minor then they don't even issue a correction or update.

I personally think that attitude towards production pushes it towards slop, as for things like entertainment one of the key defining things that separate slop from quality media is passion, but if you don't care about making accurate content then are you any better than just getting AI to write a script?

That's why you ask 6 of them, and of they all come to the same conclusion then chances are it's either right, or a common pitfall.