In common commercial english, i would read that as “this merchant will offer to trade any of the books for an amoumt of currency equal to half the book’s cover price plus $1.”

Such vagueness also suggests sufficient informality that the merchant may either accept seperate offers or veto the general rule on a case-by-case basis.

Bail is not money you get back. It’s money that a bail bondsman doesn’t have to fork over if you dont show.

Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don’t have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)

New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.

Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.

Has it also led chidren to believe that if you cut down a tree with an axe it will just hang in the sky instead of falling down?

So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?

Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/07/target-self-checkout-thief-aziza-graves-convicted/73599144007/

(edit: shortened url.)

It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.

Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?

1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a “single-vote plurality wins” systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn’t already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.

2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being “a party”. There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.

It’s not a question of wanting competition or not. Political parties by nature will attempt to get as strong a coalition as they can, until they reach a size large enough that bisecting the party still leaves one half in power and some internal disagreememt triggers the split.

Fringe parties in America, like the Green and Libertarian parties, arent oppressed by some conspiracy between Rs and Ds. Rather, they are left at the fringe because they do not have any power worth pledging to, for the simple fact that in the american single-rep plurality-wins system tbere is no prize for second place.

Voters who like the current office holder work to keep them in power and those who do not work with the opposition to remove the incumbent from power. Anyone not joining one of these sides serves only as a tool for one side against the other, since anything but a vote for the runner up is an effective endorsrment of the eventual winner.

The American system is imperfect and could be a lot better, but fringe parties and vanity campaigns do nothing to actually encourage systemic change.

I think rhe voting age should be the lower of the minimum age to labor or the age of potential conscription less the age of the longest-term official whoss job includes sending people to war.

In the USA, that would put the voting age all the way down to 12. And having both been 12 myself once and having close family who were recently 12, I’m entirely OK with that.

“they” has always been proper, it just used to be incorrectly taught agaist like split infinitives and ending a sentence with a proposition.

Wikipedia dates its first usge as over 500 years ago, and complaints less than 300.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

English is an organic language and can shift subtly with each speaker,. Especially if prior usage makes communication more difficult.

NOT having distinct terms for sex and gender makes communication and understanding harder. If you have alternate terms you think are better I’d love to hear them., but if all you have is an insistence that “incorrect English” is a thing I’ll just have to wish you a good day.

Male or female = sex = what’s in their pants.

Man or woman = gender = how they express and identify.

While I recognize that some may use these terms differently, I find that having a strict sex/gender seperation for them in my personal use helps greatly in keeping the concepts distinct and having empathy for those whose gender is not sex-conformant.

That it also leads to a pithy rebuttal to “what is a woman” bigotry is just a nice side effect. Apologies if my usage was not immediately apparent.

I think the best response is always “you don’t know that”. Sex and Gender are not the same thing, and adults should know by now that they can’t tell what’s in someone else’s pants by looking at their face.