not ever war was dictated by a set of engagement rules.

extreme fascism and extreme bureaucracy are effectively the same thing for the end user at a certain point.

god, dont make me feel old by saying stuff like that lel

Depends on book vs movie snape. Book snape makes it clear multiple times he’s only protecting him for the sake of lily but movie snape doesn’t have any of those scenes. The omitting of those scenes for the movies makes a totally different character and one good example of this is the scene where he produced the doe patronus. In both scenes dumbledor implies snape has grown to care for Harry. In the books snape makes a statement implying the doe is showing he only cares for Lily’s memory but in the movie that statement is purposefully absent to imply that version of snape actually does care about Harry.

you can look to see who it was by goinng on the internet archive.
the deleted account is "strangelyacoustic"

just capture a band of roving elephants and harvest an appropriately sized heart whenever a replacement is needed

just gonna add onto something you said or i guess, answer a question you offered.
" Does YouTube and the parent or even the child (posting video of themselves dancing) face criminal charges?"
at least in oklahoma, the person who distributed the content would be charged. So if the child uploaded the video themselves they would potentially face a charge of distribution of child pornography. If the parent did they most definitely would, this all assuming that video in question is found to be pornographic.
there's a whole hypothetical scenario based on how the laws are written where, if a 17 year old sends a picture of their genitals to another 17 year old both could potentially face jail time, one for possessing child pornography and one for distributing it. The act of sending the photograph to another causes the image to go from a legal non-sexual picture of themselves for potentially "is there something wrong with my bits" purposes to being defined as sexual from being a nude sent.

i assume the car with its bumper on her hood rolled off the roof of the car after being absolutely yeeted by hitting that divider brick line thing

ok? i dont understand the point of that statement, are you saying that to mean that there wont be any situations where break failure will cause one of these vehicles to need to choose between a pedestrian who is following the law and the driver of the vehicle?
if so that requires one to accept the idea that
1. servicing makes brake failure impossible.
and
2. every owner of one of these vehicles will properly service their vehicle regularly.
-
even if you accept those 2 things as fact (which i dont) there are many situations in which a car can be caused to not brake in time for a pedestrian who is following the law and has right of way be it from the vehicle having a fault or a failure or an outside source causing the vehicle to lose control enough to have to make the choice of the aformentioned right of way pedestrian and the driver of the vehicle.

Unless it’s got a break failure/lose of total control as it’s coming up to a red light crosswalk in which case the pedestrian has right of way

Ye ye lel