You might get some enjoyment out of Mark Rober's series where he builds contraptions to mess with porch pirates. Nothing directly harmful like wasps, but he builds a box that basically records the thief, glitter bombs them, sprays bad smells, and in some later iterations, has an ominous countdown and fake police radio.
He also tries to catch some people who break into parked cars the same way, but with much less success as they turned out to be a lot more organized and scarier.
I'd argue that they have asked for trucks to get so big because they seemingly sell better that way. It's admittedly an imperfect thing to look at since there's few alternatives and many other factors, but these big trucks didn't immediately take over the market. At some point they were introduced and consumers liked them.
As someone who also loves that one and considered Airplane the best comedy, I concur. I'll also add both Hot Shots movies to that.
When you have a 3D printer, you have a compulsion to come up with uses for it, even if they're useless. 3D printers are great, but there's this urge to find more ways to use it, rather than be driven by what you want/need.
Are you suggesting that because the charges were dropped, he's not a murderer? Because that's not how language works. Being legally proven to have done a crime is not the same as having done the crime. You can be convicted while innocent or have charges dropped when actually guilty. It's perfectly valid to call someone a murder even if the legal system is a failure.
I don't think you can hand wave away all risks like that. Negligence is a thing and a waiver won't protect you from it.
Of course, there's the question of if the candy-murder factory was negligent. I'm sure oompa loompa lawyers will be arguing in court for many months.
But it's not the author exploiting publishing companies. It's the execs of those companies exploiting their own workers. The publishing companies make excellent money (and same for paper creators, etc). Just it disproportionately goes to execs and possibly shareholders, not workers.
Hey, where'd you find this? Do they have any that works on the rear blinkers?
I find this very unconvincing. Ads don't offer a service. They're not like a search engine or the likes. So why should ads have to target all groups equally?
Yeah, it doesn't have to require a legal solution. Public shunning is an effective tool against things like this. Most people feel shame. As well, most employers do not want to employ blatant bigots, and losing your job can be just as harsh as any legal system punishment would be. In most cases, public shaming is all it takes for the event to dissolve entirely.
Yeah, I'm proud of the younger generation. I see them standing up against the kinda shit that my generation at the same age just accepted or perpetrated.
I find it more common to do this for replies to my comments. I'm far more likely to post a first comment in a thread, but if someone has some disagreeing reply, the odds I'll say "fuck it, I don't care" is a lot, lot higher.