abandonware empires
Kid_Thunder @ Kid_Thunder @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 246Joined 2 yr. ago
Kid_Thunder @ Kid_Thunder @kbin.social
Posts
0
Comments
246
Joined
2 yr. ago
I mean I could post the quotes of him supporting a no-exception national abortion ban and the quote of him saying that if he really paid for an abortion that there's no shame in that. But that's low hanging fruit. Instead, I'm just going for the fruit that already fell on the ground:
I’m this country boy. I’m not that smart.
- Herschel Walker
And people say, ‘Herschel, you played football.’ But I said, ‘Guys, I also was valedictorian of my class. I also was in the top 1% of my graduating class in college.
- Also Herschel Walker
So what we do is we’re going to put, from the ‘Green New Deal,’ millions or billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. So all of a sudden China and India ain’t putting nothing in there – cleaning that situation up. So all with that bad air, it’s still there. But since we don’t control the air, our good air decide to float over to China, bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. And now we’ve got to clean that back up.
- Herschel Walker again. This isn't a joke.
Alright I know this is going to get some hate and I fully support emulation and an overhaul of US copyright and patent law but the justmeremember's supportive post is just bad. This is the same bad practice that many organizations, especially manufacturing, have problems with. If the 20 years of raw data is so important, then why is it sitting on decades passed end-of-life stuff?
If it is worth the investment, then why not invest in a way to convert the data into something less dependent on EOL software? There's lots of ways, cheap and not to do this.
But even worse, I bet there 'raw' data that's only a year old still sitting on those machines. I don't know if the 'lab guy' actually pulls a salary or not but maybe hire someone to begin trying to actually solve the problem instead of maintaining an eventual losing game?
In 20 years they couldn't be cutting slivers from the budget to eventually invest in something that would perhaps 'reset the clock?'
At this point I wouldn't be surprised to find a post of them complaining about Excel being too slow and unstable because they've been using it as a database for 20 years worth of data at this point either.
Don't forget that there are many, many appointed superdelegates who each have around 8,000 voting power each.
There were 618 pledges from DNC superdelegates in the 2016 nomination, equaling 4,944,000 voting power (meaning votes equivalent to 5 million regular voters in the DNC). These are not delegates assigned to states but to specific groups and people in positions in the DNC itself.
For reference, 16,917,853 of the popular vote itself went to Hilary Clinton and 13,210,550 went to Bernie Sanders according to this eye cancer of a website. If all of the DNC superdelegates voted for Bernie Sanders, he would have won the 2016 DNC primaries, even though the DNC voters regardless that the actual regular DNC voters voted for Hilary.
Anyway, I'm only making a point that system was broken.
The DNC did reform this afterwards, in that, if the first ballot doesn't have an absolute majority then superdelegates will cast votes but otherwise, cannot (as a superdelegate).
“Democrats are trying to scare women into thinking Republicans don’t want abortion legal under any circumstances.”
- Sean Hannity
I think the GOP did that themselves last year in regards to the 10 year old girl who had to cross state lines into Indiana to get an abortion.
If there's an adblock I can't get around because, for example, I'm using a DNS server that blocks ads on my phone then I just create a snapshot in the Wayback Machine. For whatever reason, websites don't block them or they're just really good at circumventing them.
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state's rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn't make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn't go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress' business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (that it is the state's prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government's), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it'd be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state's the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
PG&E be like:
that's 🔥
20.58% of the US population are baby boomers as of 2022. Source March 2023.
Alternatively, 17% of the US population is over 65. Source July 2022.
Though those aged 50+ are about evenly split between Republican and Democrat Leaning, which was surprising to me. Source.
38.6% of the US population are southerners as of 2022. Source.
Obviously, the above are not additive but other than Georgia, southern states are red for the last Presidential election in 2020. Source.
Republican leaning and Democrat leaning about the same at 44% vs. 45% respectively. Interestingly, both parties are the same at 28% of the sampling with 41% identifying as Independant as of 2022. Source.
The source for thehill's article is from a CBS News poll which may or may not have an even demographic sampling of the US population. However, the above stats do suggest that it is probably accurate enough.
What's really important is what percentage of these samplings actually bother to vote. Only 49.1% of 18 - 24 year olds in the US are registered to vote, 62.7% for 25 - 24 year olds...increasing with age groups until 75 or older, where there is a slight drop to 76.6%. Source 2022. However, there was only a 62.8% turn-out rate during 2022 and was considered a 'surge'. Source 2022.
I really don't want to deep dive in available statistics to start figuring out analytics and predictions. I don't do this for a living and I am willing to devote no more than 30 minutes to all of this. And unfortunately, the statistics really didn't show what I'd expect, which was going to probably be that we can just blame the Boomers. It shows a pretty even split amongst the population. Though the trend seems to be that the older you are, the more likely you are to be registered to vote but not necessarily actually vote in the US.
Is there a perceptible profit motive? No? Then we're wasting resources that could be used to chase things that have shareholder value.
- Corporate "Ethics"
Is there also a policy against evading blocks/bans? If there was then perhaps the subject in this article would have never happened.
Perhaps the takeaway here is that we could all learn from writing policies that would definitely solve every instance of a problem. For example, if a company could have policies against sexual harassment it could all stop.
In another example on a bigger scale, if countries would sign a treatise of some type with other peoples and nations then we could all get along far better. A great example of this could be when the US signed various treaties with different Native American Tribes such, as happens, this Wikipedia article describes.
Thank you. I believe the world could learn much from our discussion and I know, I feel that my own experiences and opinions have been rightfully invalidated.
No, she said they were intercepting forearms. She would no after all. There the best intel analyst the Chesire Police had to offer I'm sure.
I no [sic] a lady who works for the police. This is not hearsay. Direct to me. They can access Encro software. And are using to intercept forearms [sic] only at the moment. There [sic] software runs 48 hours behind real time. So have ur burns one day max. And try to avoid giving postcodes over it.
Don't people read the article anymore?
Well, this was back in the late 00s/early 10s. So circa 2008 - 2010. I don't remember the exact year.
I'd assume they had to make a policy against territorial editors because it was already a problem though. I definitely experienced it.
And they said the Hamas and Israelis can't find common ground on anything.
They should have their slogan be "Our cleaner fees are cheaper than Airbnb!"
I don't know how it is now but back in the late 00's/very early 10's I had attempted to correct some obvious mistakes in some articles I came across. Some edits were immediately reverted -- seemingly by a bot while others were reverted to some editor. On some, I tried using Talk to discuss why the reversion is incorrect and had put forth better sources (the actual source) instead of some 'scientific journalist's' article that got it wrong and was basically threatened that I'd be banned.
These weren't some esoteric or difficult subjects but fairly well-known and straight-forward data. It was such a hassle that I just gave up after my very short foray into Wikipedia editing for 5 or so years. I gave it another go for some subjects in my industry and learned that editors are not only territorial but take corrections personally. Sources be damned. What I've seen is so-called scientific journalists for news articles/blogs are just anecdotes pulled from paper abstracts. An abstract of an abstract with opinions not derived from the actual data. How is something like theregister, CNN, MSNBC or Fox News more reputable than the sources that they sourced from?
With that, the well-known advice of "Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and actually read the cited sources." and more importantly, the cited sources' source, rings true.
In other words, in my opinion, Wikipedia is more a summary of blogspam than it is an encyclopedia, though there are some exceptions of course.
SEO ruined the Internet because it made SEO essential to be seen in relevant search results above other less relevant search results. In other words, less relevant search results can often be seen on the first page along with more relevant search results, or even sometimes instead of relevant search results on the first 2 pages of any reputable search engine.
Also, Internet Reputation companies have proven that SEO and fake content can be used as a weapon to push relevant search results so far down nobody sees them anymore.
Finally, how many times have you searched for something just to come across some random webpage with just a bunch of word salad that happens to somehow be relevant. An easy example of this are phone numbers. You search for a phone number that called you and chances are you won't see much relevant data. Just a mix of "robocaller" reporting websites -- usually with no information and random websites with just a bunch of phone numbers in sequential order with no relevant data whatsoever. Even if it's a business' actual phone number.
Still accessible for now and less likely to be accessible as the clock ticks and less likely that there is compatible hardware to replace.
If it isn't worth the investment, then what's the problem here? So what if the data is lost? It obviously isn't worth it.
OK but that isn't a counter point to what I said. If the hardware never fails, there is no problem either. What does that matter? And who cares if it was FOSS (though I am a FOSS advocate). What if nobody maintains it?
It doesn't matter because these aren't the reality of the problems that this person is dealing with. Why not make some FOSS that takes care of the issue and runs on something that isn't on borrowed time and can endure not only hardware changes but operating system changes? That'd be relevant. It goes back to my point doesn't it? Why not hire this person.
Clean room reverse engineering has case law precedent that essentially make this low risk legally (certainly nil if the right's holder is defunct).
I didn't miss the point. I even made the point of having at least 20 years to plan for it in the budget. Also the hardware has already lost support or there wouldn't be an issue, would there? You could just keep sustaining it without relying on a diminishing supply.
Or are we talking about some hypothetical hardware that wasn't mentioned? I guess I would have missed that point since it was never made.