Schadrach @ Schadrach @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

1,097

Joined

2 yr. ago

Advertising company makes it harder to block ads on their browser, news at 11.

Or did anyone forget that they made an explicit effort to block another ad blocking extension a while back, including blocking it from the Chrome store, blocking you from installing it manually and even blocking at least some versions of it from being manually installed in developer mode?

Ad nauseam, because it also simulated ad clicks and thus ruined their metrics.

EDIT: Fucking phone autocorrect. "as clocks" -> "ad clicks".

I mean it probably is nothing but Trump trying to get more plane for less money as a way of stretching his funds given I'm sure he worries about all those damages he owes. Especially if he doesn't get reelected.

Only insofar as some instances block communication from some other instances. Not mine though, that's actually one of the reasons I picked it. That and it being by an org that's older than the web and runs a public unix server and a bunch of retrocomputing type services as well as fediverse stuff. They started out as a dialup anime BBS.

If I recall correctly Gore (probably) won with a full state wide recount, but in the counties he asked for he ironically (probably) would have ended up losing.

That's how I understand it, based on what was reported regarding the four county recounts and media orgs doing research after the fact at a statewide level. But not just any recount - a recount using different rules for undervotes than were used for the original count and previous recount. Them wanting to do that was part of the crux of Bush v Gore - using different rules for certain counties than others violates equal protection.

Or fix the butterfly ballot issue.

Doing that would require re-running the election entirely, which definitely wasn't possible in the 5 days from when Gore started his final partial recount to the election deadline, especially since two of those were a weekend.

That doesn’t really answer the final question though. Is it going to be called Election Day like 7 of the 11? The day after(or really the morning after) like 2004 or 2016? Is it going to last days like 2020? Or weeks like in 2000?

Depends on how many recounts get called for and how many absentee ballots there are. 2020 was unique in terms of the sheer scale of absentee ballots, which extended the count. Trump also fought as much as he could legally for as long as he could, though that didn't really take the form of continuing recounts like it did with Gore.

I'm going to go with a couple of days for an initial count (either late day after or day after that, depending on number of absentee ballots), add at least a week if anywhere is particularly close (can trigger automatic recounts and are prime targets for candidates to request recounts). If Trump loses, then it depends how much of his lawfare against the election involves recounts if it stops there or not. If Harris loses, expect a few targeted recounts as well if anywhere is kinda close.

Either way I know two things for certain: Harris will win the popular vote, if for no other reason than because she's going to win California by a large enough margin that she could lose every other state by a margin within believable reason and still win the popular vote. And roughly a sixth or so of the country is going to claim the election was hacked, cheated or stolen in some fashion (basically a large minority of the losing party) regardless of who wins.

2000 took over a month infamously.

It would have been being recounted right up to the deadline on Tuesday had Bush not filed an injunction the previous Friday.

To be fair, it's an entirely reasonable argument that recounting four counties using different rules than the rest of the state probably violates equal protection under the law, so you either throw away equal protection as regards elections, make election deadlines unenforceable, or use the existing counts after the previous recount.

As a bonus, Gores last attempted recount would not have won him the election, though according to some media estimates counting the entire state by the method Gore wanted to use in his final recount likely would have tipped the scales. And avoided the equal protection issue, but also would have been impossible before the deadline.

Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.

My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.

In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.

That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.

There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).

I think fear that if a Republican wins office it will be the end of democracy and we will collapse into a single party totalitarian system is probably unfounded, yes.

I suspect the Democrat party feels the same way behind closed doors, otherwise we wouldn't have heard their candidate at the time (this was before Biden quit) say “I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did [as] good a job as I know I can do, that's what this is about." That's not a thing you say if you genuinely believe that this election is the last chance to save the country from becoming an authoritarian fascist state.

But really that's besides the point - the point is that both sides actively engage in trying to terrify their voters into voting for them because neither can present a reason why we should want to vote for them in remotely enough numbers to win otherwise.

I mean it worked for gay sex!

I mean it's not totally off base though - imagine asking a Clinton era Democrat during that time period how they'd feel about a law making it a cause for civil action if someone absconded with your child to have them do transgender treatments without your knowledge or approval. I guarantee you it would have waaaaay more support from Dems then than it would from Dems now. You know, now when it's being opposed for being transphobic.

But then we can just look at Hillary Clinton for an example of the drift in action - Hillary from that era said her politics were primarily shaped by her conservative upbringing, she strongly opposed gay marriage, and she spent some effort as first lady trying to subvert the 1st amendment with Tipper Gore because rap lyrics are naughty.

A man that wins votes by instilling fear.

This is one of those things you can honestly "both sides". Trump tries to get votes by instilling fear of immigrants and trans, Dems try to get votes by instilling fear of Trump. Because neither for the most part are willing to present a positive reason to vote for them that would remotely get enough votes to win.

Eh, that's fair. They tend to have some small upset about trans men insofar as trans men make trans women more socially acceptable but you're right - the primary target of TERF anger is trans women being in women's spaces because they believe trans women are men, all men are predators, that the purpose of women's spaces is to keep women safe from predatory men, and that trans women being a thing essentially allows predatory men to put on a costume to gain access to victims in vulnerable positions.

The other ones I've seen going around are that he doesn't own any major stocks or investments outside pensions and that he got arrested for DUI and speeding...30 years ago. They're really trying hard and failing.

I never understood why men would be embarrassed to go to the store and buy tampons/douches/random female products.

I've never understood this one either, and I am a dude. Done this for a couple of girlfriends over the years and most recently my wife.

Eh, it'll work well with the TERF-y types, and the general right wing transphobes.

Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago

The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.

If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.

Free speech is protection from government oppression. Last I checked, I’m not the government, neither is Lemmy, neither is any other site on the internet that doesn’t end in .gov (typically), and this isn’t a free speech issue despite what MAGA idiots would have people think. If the platform wants that shit there, so be it, and I won’t use it when it’s painted on their front page. I use Lemmy because I was here (on another instance originally) before the MAGA weirdos decided to join to spread their bullshit, so I’ve had time to curate – apparently I have to do it again, or simply leave this instance.

This appears to be an argument against a position I wasn't taking. You just appear to be upset that alternative video streaming sites don't ban people you disagree with. Good luck with that.

Just because I use the internet (which I have been doing since only a few years after the WWW was invented), doesn’t mean I have to tolerate bullshit when I see it.

Hey, you may been around longer than I have. Only had the internet since the mid 90s. So it depends on how you define "a few". It was a very different beast back then, and I for one miss the relative lack of concentrated corporate control and mandatory advertiser-friendliness.

Perhaps if everyone was like this, the internet wouldn’t be the shithole it has become.

I chalk that up to said concentrated corporate control and mandatory advertiser-friendliness, but then I don't think it's become a shithole because people I disagree with also have a voice, but because of aggressive monetization and the enshittification that that inevitably entails.

And I’m done responding now, because clearly you and many others in this thread will never understand, or even care to understand.

No, you are well understood. You are opposed to alternative video platforms (and apparently some other unnamed Lemmy instance) because those things do not necessarily reinforce your echo chamber, and you consider that reinforcement a vital feature. I'm waaay over on the far end of the spectrum, and chose my instance specifically because they do not defederate, they keep everything available and leave it up to the user to decide what they do or do not wish to see (and I to date have nothing blocked - no users, no communities, no servers).

You do know there's a big difference between a "default" option and a "mandatory" setting, right? Specifically that you do, in fact, have a choice to change a default?

Not forcing the user to proactively make a choice is not the same thing as denying the user the ability to choose.

(such as screaming fire in a movie theater when there is no fire)

This idiom comes from an analogy in a SCOTUS opinion arguing that checks notes it's a violation of the Espionage Act to distribute flyers that oppose the draft. That case was later partly overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio and the standard is that speech isn't incitement unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. To the point that "$SLUR should hang from trees" is probably protected speech (because the lawless action isn't imminent), but "you guys, grab that $SLUR over there so we can string them up!" probably isn't.

So defending free speech inevitably means defending white supremacists and the like because free speech doesn't actually protect anything if it doesn't protect upsetting, outrageous, or offensive speech (and likewise, the arbiter of what counts as offensive is not guaranteed to always be on your side). It's why the ACLU has defended them on more than one occasion. H.L. Mencken put it best.

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken

I mean, that is technically promoting violence against an identifiable minority political group.