"Independent" doesn't mean that much. It's a self applied label that is detached from now they actually vote. There's plenty of people who consistently vote for only one party and call themselves independents, but for the purpose of discussions like this, they aren't. When people talk about republicans in contexts like this, they don't mean registered republicans or "self labeled republicans". They mean people who support and especially people who vote for republicans.
Being less than 1/3 of the population is also kinda misleading when only 2/3 of the population even care enough to vote. Sure, it's technically 1/3, but for all intents and purposes, it's half. The 1/3 who don't vote don't matter. It doesn't help people who are fighting for their rights that "technically, only 1/3 of the country support a lunatic". By not voting, that 1/3 politically doesn't exist. So it's effectively half the country supporting Trump.
(There's something to be said about how a good chunk of non voters are effectively supporting Trump by not voting even when things are this extreme, too. But it's really hard to make assumptions about why people don't vote, so I don't think it's worth focusing on except for the purpose of getting people to vote.)
Are you confusing blank for not voting? Because only 1.7M people left their ballot blank. That's different from not voting.
It's hard to make judgments about non voters, by nature of how they didn't vote. Some didn't vote because they disliked Clinton, yes, but many others didn't vote because they simply don't care what happens, they think it won't make a difference, their state is overwhelmingly in favour of one party (whether or not they support it), voting feels too difficult, to protest, because they're lazy, or many other reasons.
I'm gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren't exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we're still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I'm so glad I'm not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?
And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!
I know there's something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you're more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.
Again, I'm sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don't think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.
Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.
And then if we criticize them, they'll tell us to mind our own business, as if it's a harmless hobby that doesn't hurt anyone else.
Yeah, I know, I'm being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You'll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Monopolies aren't based on the mere existence of competition. It's based on power and market share. Eg, Chrome has a monopoly. Firefox, Safari, and a few niche browsers exist. But Chrome is the utter vast majority of the market and has pretty much all the power on dictating web standards as a result.
Microsoft had competitors when they got sued for their IE + Windows monopoly. But they had an utterly massive amount of the market share and used that to push their own browser.
All of the following? Why would you need to be better in every way? There's a perfectly valid use case for trade offs. Eg, let's say some competitor had exclusives, no VR, the store interface was a little worse, and it was only roughly comparable on many other points. If it's simply faster and more lightweight, that's its competitive advantage. Or if it focuses on being open source and DRM free like GoG, that's a competitive advantage.
Expecting something to be better in every way (than something with a massive head start) or else it might as well not exist? That's just unreasonable. I don't require a clothing store to be better than Walmart to shop there. I mean, the clothing store doesn't even sell fruit! Why would anyone shop there when you can go to the Walmart and buy some grapes with your jeans?
It's definitely not merely a matter of not bothering to make a decent store though. I mean, do you think Epic is held back by not being bothered? The way they pour money into their store, I'd it were easy, they'd have it. And having a decent store isn't enough. It's kinda like social media in that you need the crowd effect. People want all their games in one place with integrations like friends, mods, achievements, etc. AFAIK, there's no open standard for most of these things, so you need a big market share to convince devs to make the change.
There's at the very least a lot of social and managerial pressure to act cheerful. Even if you didn't do it, many people would because it's effectively required of them. Something being technically a choice doesn't remove the social pressures that make many feel that it's not a choice. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it's been used as rationale to fire people before, which means that for some, it isn't a choice (and most people are scared of losing their jobs, so won't try to find out).
In tipped roles, it would definitely result in less pay.
Yes! Can confirm it's fixed. It's great and revitalized my interest in using certain characters. I had almost sworn off some characters because of the bug and now they're back on the menu.
Druids are insane. Owlbear does utter bonkers damage. Far beyond what I could do with any other character (I can't tell if that means I built my other classes wrong). Only downside is that druids feel super limited. Usually to just melee attacks with no items and most equipment doesn't even do anything (there's little reason to ever purposefully revert to your original form, since you'd just eat a wild shape charge).
If it was something like a language theory class, that's perfectly valid. Honestly, university should be teaching heavily about various language paradigms and less about specific languages. Learning languages is easy if you know a similar language already. And you will always have to do it. For my past jobs, I've had to learn Scala, C#, Go, and several domain specific or niche languages. All of them were easy to learn because my university taught my the general concepts and similar languages.
The most debatable language I ever learned in university was Prolog. For so long, I questioned if I would ever have a practical usage for that, but then I actually did, because I had to use Rego for my work (which is more similar to prolog than any other language I know).
Baldur's Gate 3 is great at story and choices, which I think is where a lot of praise comes from. But it has a lot of really questionable issues with smaller mechanics.
The one I'm hating the most is how NPCs react to many summons and wild shape. Having a wild shaped party member makes most NPCs run away screaming, which is very painful in the NPC heavy areas of act 3 and basically discouraged you from even using wild shape or summon elemental, even though those are both incredibly powerful. You can dismiss the summon/wild shape, but it uses resources, so it sucks to do so. People have reported the bug for months but it doesn't seem on the devs radar (they purposefully made NPCs run away -- it's a "feature").
And just the other day, I discovered weirdness with warlock spell slots. Something about having used an elixer that gives me an extra spell slot (and then having consumed the spell slot) was preventing me from casting certain warlock spells (I think those of the spell slot's level) because it claimed it needed that spell slot, even though I had higher level warlock spell slots. So a bunch of my spells couldn't be used! When I searched, I found many reports about similar issues when people multi classed.
Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split. The only reason I can think of to explain that is that they simply knew what was going to happen and any other explanation is just gaslighting us into thinking that they were doing something.
Yeah, I think that's what it is. Take climate change for example. These days, even denier of climate change aren't usually denying that it exists, but rather that humans are causing it, that we can do anything about it, or that it matters. For those deniers, climate change isn't stressful or depressing at all. If anything, to them it's just an annoyance that people are trying to get them to make changes.
But to people who don't bury their head in the sand, climate change is terrifying. The idea that we're making the world less hospitable to ourselves and our children is horrible enough, but it's made worse by the fact that we could be taking action to reduce it... but don't.
And then there's dozens of similar issues besides climate change, like access to healthcare, LGBT rights, genocides occuring around the world, the growing wealth inequality, police violence, etc etc etc.
It's kinda weird actually how normalized driving is. There's a lot of people who are so scared of flying that they won't do it. But far fewer people take such an approach to being in a personal vehicle, despite being massively more dangerous.
I think it's because car deaths are just so normalized that most people are numb to them. It's kinda like that iconic Joker monologue about how it's "all according to the plan". People are afraid of exemplary things, not the mundane things that will actually kill them.
Yeah, like, what the fuck? Why on earth would anyone do that? Do they not own a phone?
Browser history is the most minor part. You should assume that your work sees everything you do to at least some degree. They may have full access to everything on your computer and private browsing won't do anything against that. It's also common that work computers would use a work owned VPN, so they'll at least know what sites you're visiting. HTTPS prevents knowing exactly what you're doing, but a VPN provider will know what IPs you're connecting too and thus will have a high level of what you're doing.
It should be that easy. The US is such a bizarre place. They call themselves a developed country and have a GDP that outpaces most others, yet they can't even offer the things that many developing countries can.
But sadly, I don't think it's as simple as you hope. About half of the elected US politicians want nothing to improve. The president can't do that much on their own. If Americans gave a shit, they could fix this in a single election cycle by electing some actual progressives, but Americans are pretty fucked up and most either don't give a shit, or give negative shits (as in, they want to see things get worse for certain people).
Wait, so I know furries exist, but do people really crush on the statue of Liberty, of all things??? I've literally never heard anyone say they crushed on that before.
Yeah. It's frustrating seeing the right act like their view is somehow scientifically correct or whatever, when it's actually against medical consensus.
They love to make claims about how they're all about "facts don't care about your feelings", which they'll back up with stuff they learned in 6th grade science while pretending college level science doesn't exist lol.
You definitely still want locks because most people have no idea how to pick a lock and a lot of crime is crimes of opportunity. But I don't think there's that much of a difference in most locks. A slightly better lock might dissuade a thief who learned how to pick cheap masterlocks, but someone who truly wants to get in doesn't even need to pick a lock. I'd hazard a guess that break-ins happen far more often by breaking the window than picking locks.
CoderKat @ CoderKat @lemm.ee Posts 7Comments 728Joined 2 yr. ago
"Independent" doesn't mean that much. It's a self applied label that is detached from now they actually vote. There's plenty of people who consistently vote for only one party and call themselves independents, but for the purpose of discussions like this, they aren't. When people talk about republicans in contexts like this, they don't mean registered republicans or "self labeled republicans". They mean people who support and especially people who vote for republicans.
Being less than 1/3 of the population is also kinda misleading when only 2/3 of the population even care enough to vote. Sure, it's technically 1/3, but for all intents and purposes, it's half. The 1/3 who don't vote don't matter. It doesn't help people who are fighting for their rights that "technically, only 1/3 of the country support a lunatic". By not voting, that 1/3 politically doesn't exist. So it's effectively half the country supporting Trump.
(There's something to be said about how a good chunk of non voters are effectively supporting Trump by not voting even when things are this extreme, too. But it's really hard to make assumptions about why people don't vote, so I don't think it's worth focusing on except for the purpose of getting people to vote.)