But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Still, this doesn't meet a reasonable bar of plagiarism. I get the hypocrisy but two wrongs don't make a right and this should never have been taken seriously.
I think people are missing something important here - this ruling is merely that he can appear on a party primary ballot, which is something not explicitly covered by the constitution. Even if he wins a primary the supreme court can then rule that he's still ineligible to run as president.
"He hasn't been convicted of insurrection" isn't a legal gray area, that's just misdirection by his supporters. Just like most other legal proceedings this one isn't dependent on the result of other legal proceedings. The supreme court will decide for themselves whether he was "involved in insurrection" - the law here doesn't depend on him being previously convicted of "insurrection", a different charge which has a much higher legal bar.
There's overwhelming evidence that he was "involved" in this insurrection so he'll almost certainly be held accountable. But whether the supreme court decides to disqualify him depends mostly on their interpretation of the clause naming the offices which he can be banned from. Given that the supreme court are republicans will they rule that "public office" does or doesn't include the presidency since it isn't named explicitly in the clause?
Trolley buses are a weird niche. They require permanent overhead cable infrastructure like trams do but don't have the other benefits of trams - higher capacity, greater speed, better ride and no tyre pollution. I figure if you're going to install a trolley bus route you probably might as well install rails at the same time and get the benefits of trams. (Aka streetcars for the North Americans out there)
The City of London did assessments on trolley buses and found that the added capacity of trams made them the better choice pretty much anywhere trolley buses were proposed, despite the slightly higher install cost.
Don't blame your dad - however much you resent him it's not like he has any influence over the economy. Instead blame the super rich who have real influence and are actively pushing policy to widen this social divide.
OP describes how primitive computing was in the 80s and 90s, and speaks of a number of developments which appeared "leading up to the year 2000". Let me give examples of all of these developments which were actually from the 1970s or earlier:
The VAX-11/780 was introduced in 1977, pretty much introduced the concept of a modern MMU and memory model - although there were plenty of precursors. They were very popular and widespread.
Lisp's been around since 1958. It (and other languages) used memory managed runtimes similar in concept to today's ones.
IBM's VM/370 OS introduced virtual machines on IBM mainframes in 1972. They were an integral part of the OS and CPU architecture, probably more so than current VMs which are kind of tacked on as an afterthought.
Modular programming languages were a big topic in this era. One that comes to mind is Modula-2 which was first introduced in 1977, but much programming language development at the time was focused on modularity and code reuse.
My point is that I think these advancements were made a lot earlier than OP's saying. Sure, some of them took a while to spread but we pretty much started the 80s with all of this already in place.
But maybe they removed it because they saw it as unnecessary? It'd be restating the obvious since it already says insurrectionists can't be officials, then goes on to list a few examples which were pertinent when the law was created in response to the aftermath of the civil war. In the end it depends whether they decide to interpret part of the clause literally and as more important than the intent of the clause, which seems pretty clear. How they interpret it seems to be a bit up in the air given their party affiliations.
Legal Eagle does a really good run down of the legal aspects here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krVNdQOWYk4