No, I prefer to base my decisions about what is sentient or not sentient on science rather than anthropomorphisms.

Plants don't scream. Plant's don't feel. Animals do. Deal with it.

Oh yes, by not voting you sacrificed so much of your comfort. You made such a worthy stand.

You have achieved nothing else than enabling Trump. And you don't even realise it.

The Trump campaign counted on people like you to win. You served them well.

Eeh I don't know where you live, but that doesnt happen for headphones anywhere I know, unless they're made of gold and incrusted with diamonds

Alright, I read your article. All it says it that there is no study determining a threshold. That's your source?

Meanwhile, here is the ECHA page for ethanol, the alcohol most present in alcoholic beverages and the only one "safe" for consumption. You will there find various toxicity thresholds established by studies, although none on humans. But unless you are willing to argue that humans don't have thresholds for alcohol while mice, rats and monkeys do, that doesn't make a difference to the point.

No need to form a religion, it's just documented science.

Rather than hailing me, you could learn a bit about toxicology. Because the fact that everything has a threshold is pretty basic.

Everything has a threshold from a toxicology point of view.

Absolutely. Every. Single. Substance.

I haven't read the article you linked, but it does not matter, as a drop is not an indivisible unit of alcohol. It could already be above the threshold.

If your body accidentally absorbs a single molecule of ethanol, you'll be just fine.

That's a terrible comparison. I get your point, and as I said, you can shit on them for selling weapons, you can shit on them for not doing anything to stop the genocide.

But shitting on them for making the decision to recognise the state of Palestine is like shitting on the government for increasing the budget of the fire department, because it's not helping your house burning down right now.

Not charging roaming does not mean that your unlimited plan carries over abroad. It just means you can't be charged more for using your plan abroad.

It is still legal and widely done to have different limits abroad vs domestic.

Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It's a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you'd see more candidates, because people then wouldn't just "vote useful".

You don't want that. France tried that, a couple of times, it didn't work. Government ended up deadlocked and falling every 6 months. Our 5th republic granted more power to the presidency, and now it's a little better.

What you do want, however, is the head of state and the head of government to be two distinct persons. Which is not the case in the USA.

Three problems:

• It makes voting more complex. Having citizens able to make their opinion heard is important, but it should be separate from voting, unless you want an even larger abstention.
• The matching problem doesn't necessarily have a solution. As in, it might be (and is actually likely) impossible to have a set of representatives that matches the percentages of each opinion.
• Not all opinions can be expressed in a multiple choice question. Most topics are way too complex to be summarised in a few options. So, who picks the few authorized opinions?

In France voting day is always a Sunday to prevent issues like this. It seems very anti-democratic to not make sure that almost all the voting population can find the time for it.

The closest to the exact situation of the EU are Estonia, Germany, and Spain:

The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment.

Then you've got different, close enough nomination/appointment systems:

Italy:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who must gain a vote of confidence within a set time.

Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark, Portugal:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament

Sweden:

A public officeholder (other than the head of state or their representative) nominates a candidate, who, if approved by parliament, is appointed as prime minister.

Then you have some countries close to what you would like:

Japan, Thailand, Ireland:

Parliament nominates a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as prime minister.

Source

Note that in the case of the EU, the President of the Commission plays the role of the head of government (aka, the equivalent of what most countries call Prime Minister), not head of state. As established in my previous comments, the head of state of the EU is the European Council.