booly

Prosecutors are generally somewhat accommodating of victim/witness preferences, because being subpoenaed to testify in open court can be intimidating in even low profile cases. And forcing a person to testify against their will generally isn't a good trial strategy for winning cases.

if it's immediately rewarding

Hell of a caveat there.

One for each comma

Anywhere strangers tend to be around each other long enough to where small talk might be a welcome distraction: waiting in lines for something, sitting at a community table or bar/counter with mixed groups (especially while waiting for the rest of your respective friend groups to show up), sitting next to each other at a public event like live sports or a concert with downtime, volunteer events where you might be set up next to strangers doing the same thing, etc.

It's easier when there's a natural end to the interaction (your turn in line, the start of the sporting event), too.

Smartphones and headphones have made it harder, but there are still opportunities when people are bored and sitting around.

You're getting mixed up between the requirements for "American Cheese" and "American Cheese Food," which are distinct.

"Pasteurized Process American Cheese" is a cheese that follows a government regulatory definition, where the inputs are mostly cheddar and Colby cheese, and the milkfat requirements make it a little more difficult to try to make it with too much non-cheese ingredients.

Kraft Singles are the less strict "Process American Cheese Food" which only has to be 51% cheese by weight. But the labeling makes clear that it's not just cheese. Kraft Deli Deluxe slices are labeled with the stricter definition of "Process American Cheese," and pretty much any brand will have to stick with the label requirements.

If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead

I (and all the people and organizations that have worked throughout the last century to get incendiary weapons banned as anti-personnel weapons) generally feel that the method of killing matters, and that some methods are excessively cruel or represent excessive risk of long term suffering.

The existing protocol on incendiary weapons recognizes the difference, by requiring signatory nations to go out of their way to avoid using incendiary weapons in places where civilian harm might occur. Even in contexts where a barrage of artillery near civilians might not violate the law, airborne flame throwers are forbidden. Because incendiary weapons are different, and a line is drawn there, knowing that there actually is a difference between negligently killing civilians with shrapnel versus negligently killing civilians with burning.

There are degrees of morality and ethics, even in war, and incendiary weapons intentionally targeting personnel crosses a line that I would draw.

I imagine it's just a form they fill out with a few fields: city, number of shooters, number of dead, number of wounded. The rest of it stays the same each time.

The moral high ground is absolutely critical in war. War is politics by other means, and being able to build consensus, marshal resources, recruit personnel, persuade allies to help, persuade adversaries to surrender or lay down their arms, persuade the allies of your adversaries not to get involved, and keep the peace after a war is over, all depend on one's public image. There are ways to wage war without it, but most militaries that blatantly disregard morals find it difficult to actually win.

In this case? The entire military strategy of Ukraine in this war is highly dependent on preserving the moral high ground.

The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.

This is an area where it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.

So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn't enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it's morally reprehensible, and I'd prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.

Avenue 5 has a pretty funny scene where a series of skeptical conspiracy theorist types are ignoring a very specific warning, claiming that the people they see dying before their very eyes are an illusion some kind of special effects and each follows to their own death.

Wait is there a way to invent awful things and then patent troll so that nobody can actually bring them to market?

I think the problem is more that many Americans are very focused on their own culture to the exclusion of every other culture

Of course, this position directly contradicts the other dominant criticism in this thread, that Americans don't have any culture of their own and just take from others.

Americans are a remix culture, and take in influences from elsewhere (especially through 200+ years of immigration) and make it our own.