𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠 @ ChairmanMeow @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

913

Joined

2 yr. ago

ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it's best to count them. The US hasn't had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.

Even if we exclude those it's not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.

The Nedelin disaster claimed more lives than NASA did over its entire existence.

Indian

According to Krafton's statement the remaining employees are getting their bonus though.

So this is the application form:

Mamdani was born in Uganda to a Ugandan father and an Indian (Gujarati) mother. Which box would you tick?

Mamdani opted to tick "Black/African American" as well as "Asian", and at the "Other" box wrote "Ugandan".

I personally fail to see the problem. Given the constraints of these boxes, this seems to be the most accurate way of describing his ethnicity? Am I missing something here? Why is NYT presenting this as an issue at all?

Trump saying he's white despite him being orange seems like a bigger discrepancy.

because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out

You expressly can't do this. This is why there's a voting booth and observers who make sure you're alone in the booth. And after you fill out the ballot, it gets folded inward and placed in a box that is closed off until election day is over. There's no way to verify who you voted for, as your name isn't on the ballot.

In your home, someone could force themselves in, force you to vote for someone and verify you did so.

With anonymous voting at a polling place, sure someone could force you to go there, but since the vote itself is anonymous (and there's people around to check it is), they would never be able to verify that you indeed voted X or Y way. It's also why most countries ban taking pictures of your vote; no proving to anyone how you voted!

I made it up.

"Turns out all we needed to travel forwards in time is to burn homophobes!"

That's not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that's with a written constitution. There's also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the "state council"), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It's convention that that advice is followed, but it's not required.

There's still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn't have written constitution doesn't mean there's no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.

Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.

This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as "liberal" despite this internationally not being the norm at all.

Here's a definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.

Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc...

A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.

Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia's liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren't very influential w.r.t. party policy because it's such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.

Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they've come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They've remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here's the "political compass" for the Netherlands for example:

Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it's interesting to note here that the PVV (the "far-right" party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn't even all that far right. Their economic policies aren't actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there's certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.

Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don't like being lumped in with liberals, because they don't focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.

You're not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals "left-wing", but it's a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.

That's a pretty fair point, though I assume a spare powerbank would solve the problem nearly as well (albeit slower and with a cable).

Screwdrivers are pretty entry-level tools though.

I've never had one of those actually work...

Why the fuck did he sign it

Clearly the train didn't yield properly, time to ban trains.

Also, since they've been bombing nuclear facilities I can guarantee you that they have boat loads of very shitty (radioactive) chemicals laying around there which with these bombings now will also be spread around everywhere

So far no radiation was detected, so perhaps it was stored more securely (or somewhere else).

Yes, that is the big thing many people are missing. Valve takes a 0% cut from Steam keys sold outside of their platform. The 30% does not apply.

The only rule Valve sets out here is that you don't sell those Steam keys for less on other storefronts. Which imo seems fair enough if Valve is doing the distribution and asking for nothing in return.

The big sticking point is whether the 30% cut isn't too high in the first place.