If you can give a reference to any such book, I'd be very interested to see it.

Most of what you said is exactly my point. It's true the word Linux, used properly, refers to a kernel and not an operating system. But that's not the way the word is used in practice, and it is not what OP meant when they used it. They meant " an OS with the Linux kernel and GNU userspace utilities." When the word Linux is used that way, Android is not Linux.

they are operating systems that use the linux kernel, just like GNU/Linux (aka "Linux") does.

kernel != operating system

For better or worse the more correct name GNU/Linux did not catch on and is universally shortened to Linux. Android uses the Linux kernel, but is not GNU/Linux, and therefore is not Linux.

faux literally translates as false.

A faux pas-ta

*Mrs. Wasp

You have to, if your horse literally can't make it across. It may not go well, but you have no choice.

It didn't work for Florida though. Desantis was running for the nomination, not for president. Had he won the nomination, he would have had to resign as governor.

Dred Scott?

Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.

ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.

Hah! Ya got me!

But of course I'm talking about the adjective punk, as in " punk rock," which is an entirely other word than the noun puncke, (or, more modern, punk ) which Shakespeare used.

ETA: I don't mean to imply they're not related They just aren't the same word. And one of them was created in the 1970s.

I agree that the word punk came to be associated with aesthetics, almost exclusively. But that is very far from where it started, and it is frustrating for those who started it to see it coopted like this. The association of the word with anything other than anti-consumerism is just " branding" at its worst.

I was a tween when the first version of "punk" came around (yes, that makes me old). I think I can say with authority that the ideals were: anti-corporate, anti-consumerism, and anti-commercialism. Ever since then people have tried to sum it up (and marginalize it) as "DIY." But that falls well short of what it really was.

Of course, the second it showed any sign of viable popularity, the forces of capitalism, well..., capitalized on it. The obvious examples are bullshit, high production, made-for-tv bands like Green Day getting sold as punk rock. But does anyone remember Urban Outfitters? Holy crap, the open, unashamed corporate pandering!

Sure, but my point is that it is possible to make more money and then actually have less money because of taxes. It's just not for the reason in OP's post.

I don't think you've understood what my claim is. Please see my edit.

I disagree. Dad jokes are most often puns, and puns always elicit a groan, whether they're good or not. Dad jokes can be witty and/or clever, and that's what makes them good. This one is not.

Nope. This time I can't abide. There seems to be a culture here of mutual encouragement, that leads to upvoting everything no matter what. But this joke is simply awful. No good. Terrible. Very bad.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I completely agree with you. But I have been in the position where, if I made 10 dollars less I would have paid more than 100 dollars less in tax. That just comes from the infuriating discrete tax "tables," instead of actually calculating the tax using a continuous formula.

ETA: Apparently many here have never prepared their own tax return. Here is a sample of the tax table for 2023. The first two columns give a range of (adjusted) income, and the third is tax owed. Notice that someone who made $51,099 would pay $11 less in tax than someone who made just one dollar more. Admittedly that is less extreme that what I claimed above, but "back in the day" when I started paying taxes the tables went in much larger steps of income.

Jackalope?