abff08f4813c @ abff08f4813c @j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us

Posts

5

Comments

1,044

Joined

11 mo. ago

I mean, it's listed as his official birth place on his passport and all that, so...

Though, if it somehow got updated to Columbia instead, I wouldn't be surprised.

This is a good thing. In practice I imagine the Ukrainians and South Koreans will speak English to each other, which is fine, but sometimes you wonder how much is lost in translation.

If you want to pretend laws arent laws, I dont know what to tell you.

Fortunately, I have no desire to go there. (As an aside, I am still waiting for the explanation regarding the laws on sock puppetry.)

You cant just declare that reality is meaningless unless it adheres to your current most convenient outcome

Which is why I have done no such thing, and am puzzled as to why you'd claim otherwise. Quote please?

We increasingly stand for nothing but a cult of personality as long as its slightly better than republicans,

Well, tbf "we're better than that guy" is not really much of a personality cult. This is especially so when virtually anyone else is better than that guy.

thats not the dem party or the “America” I grew up with.

You must be far older than I. I only remember from the Clinton years, and Bill Clinton won in part because he was a fairly conservative Democrat from the midwestern state of Arkansas. So already in the early 90s Dems were aiming for centrist appeal.

This is exactly the centrist rot at the core of the party.

Well, it might be worth considering why the party chose to shift this way. The short answer is that the Electoral College grants too much voting power to the smaller states, which become the swing or battleground states, and so to win in the Electoral College and become President, those are the voters you have to cater to - and they happen to be not only more centralist, but probably more conservative than folks who live in huge east coast or west coast cities. See https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters for a more in-depth explanation.

I hate it too, but considering what's at stake in this election, I'll support Harris or anyone else who has a shot at winning that's not the current GOP candidate. Though my hope is this:

Harris wins and Dems get enough majority control of both houses (enough to get around likely no votes from maverick Dems like Joe Manchin), then the Senate majority leader (Schumer) can lower the bar for a filibuster to a bare majority.

Then basically follow this plan https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review - the TLDR is to pass a new law post-filibuster removal to admit each neighborhood of DC as its own state, which would add 127 new Dem states in all.

At this point there is now the required two-thirds majority of states required in the hands of the Dems, so a new constitution amendment dropping the Electoral College for a nationwide popular vote could be passed and ratified successfully.

As a bonus, also pass another amendment requiring ranked choice voting - this allows us more choices. We can safely vote third party as our first choice for President in the future, while having the more moderate Dem a 2nd or 3rd choice, meaning that we vote 3rd party without fearing the spoiler effect would prop up a MAGA candidate into office again. Which would allow more folks to feel safe in supporting their third party, meaning that third parties now have a more realistic chance of actually making it to the highest office.

Even if Dems don't hold the Senate in 2024, the Senate maps look much better in 2026. So if they can keep the House of Reps in 2026 and retake the Senate then in sufficient numbers, this could still happen under Harris.

So in summary, the best hope of moving away from catering to centralist battleground state voters first requires getting Harris elected.

Btw, in case you were wondering, I'm a far leftie who back in 2020, would have preferred Andrew Yang.. or failing that, Bernie Sanders. AOC wasn't eligible then, but she would have had my vote as well if it were possible.

This is really buggered.

What they should have done is added 3498 as a number to call, using the same emergency routes as 112 and 000. Then migrated 3498 to 4G only so users could call that and test if they could make 4G calls over the emergency line or not.

If there's some technical reason that they all had to be moved (like, you really can't test until 3G and older are turned off) then at least users can test post-cutoff by attempting to call 3498 instead of by spamming the real emergency lines. That's still pretty bad, but at least they'd find out right away without having to either 1) disrupt emergency services for a non emergency or 2) find out during an actual emergency that it doesn't work

So what's the rationale for the EU to accept Serbia as a member again?

Wonder why the Scotsman went with a slightly misleading headline here. The Tram workers won their breaks, so it's not just a claimed victory, but an actual one.

Anyways, good for the workers!

Well, I imagine that this is one reason why GOP leadership was against the ACA and tried to repeal it.

You don't need to worry about covering either one if nothing is covered, after all. /s

Agreed, except remember this - he's not really a lame duck, he's on the same team as Harris so what he does now can splash on her.

So, still yes, except use caution if there's a risk it might hurt Harris's campaign.

Thanks. Then ... I know who to write to, and what to say.

Getting to nomadic identity, and the equivalent for magazines/communities (i.e. being able to change what instance your account is based off of, as well as the instance that hosts a given community).

"Imagine if there was an organization in Canada that was recruiting volunteers for the Russian army — they would go there and they would wear Russian military uniforms, they'd live on Russian bases, they would repair Russian weapons, clean Russian tanks," he said.

I'd be against that because I'd be against what the Russian Federation's position in the Ukraine war means.

But change the above to Ukraine instead of Russia, and it'd have my full support.

"While there is a connection between the volunteer and the IDF, there is no evidence of a formal relationship."

That sounds like very clever lawyering.

Wow, this is really heartbreaking. I'd actually prefer that these folks get allowed from the Channel into land faster, even if it means that they are only being held in detention and immediately sent back on the first available plane, if it means preventing deaths of children like this.

I appreciate both the lenient approach and the transparency.

If we wanted an echo chamber, we could have called this /m/VoteBlue or similar and established only pro-Harris posts and comments as a rule.

I guess, despite the name, it can still become VoteBlue (after all, on a different website world politics used to be discussed on a sub called AnimeT... ) but I think it's worth asking - if a genuine and civil commenter of a conservative persuasion joined the sub, how willing would we be to actually engage with that person?

See this example - a liberal who once clerked for a conservative Supreme Court justice (Scalia). https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/ (or https://archive.is/KauGu )

Just because you have vastly different views and many disagreements with someone, doesn't mean that you can't engage in good faith with them, or have both sides get something meaningful from the engagement (even if part of the resolution is to continue to agree to disagree on some of the more salient points).

Hmm... that is a good take. (Somewhat scarily, that also seems to describe me really well.)

Being on the spectrum could also explain a higher than typical screen time. I've been on these online communities in the past, and there are folks there who get online as the first thing they do when they wake up, and then go offline just right before bed. (There are good reasons for it of course - when you crave social interaction but the only medium that you can handle it is using a computer, then this sort of thing becomes more understandable.)

It's easy enough to limit for a local user posting. I guess the tricky part is what if this comes in through federation from an instance that doesn't support limiting. Probably just refuse the CREATE request with an appropriate error code (400?) and message (the "try again later one") and hope the user's home instance will report that back to the user.

So I'm not sure where I fit in. I run my own instance, but it's a single user instance that only serves me. Also, I currently don't run any magazines (communities) of my own.

If I was the user on Instance A asking on Instance B ... well that means Instance A is my own, and I obviously wouldn't get in trouble with myself.

If I was the admin on Instance B - a user from elsewhere was asking me to remove such content on mine - I'd go ahead and do it. Not worth the potential headache or ramifications that would come with refusing.

I think in general, the admin on Instance A would not be upset with the user. If anything, in this situation the user is probably trying to delete their account and history, so the admins of Instance A would be thankful that the user went to instance B and saved the admins the headache of trying to contact other federated instances themselves to coordinate a manual deletion. (The only thing worse than dealing with a GDPR request is trying to get others to help you deal with a GDPR request - particularly without pay.)

I think we have the same view on this, except I don't have cognitive dissonance over the ban - the ban was for a repeating behaviour of reposting/repeat posts, rather than the person's stubbornness over the whole spoiler effect/FPTP means only two real choices thing.

Also, it's temporary and just one magazine (rather than, say, the entire instance).

Pyfedi / piefed.social has a take on this that you might find interesting.

For example, pyfedi allows for anonymous voting, but I believe there's a planned change (if it isn't already implemented and live) so that folks with a low reputation (from too many downvotes) can't use it. By default, comments and posts with too low a reputation are also hidden. This is handled automatically by the software, so no human moderator or admin has to do anything - if enough people downvote, the system enforces the consequences automatically.

I have a similar experience. E.g. https://lemmy.world/comment/12591604 - the user was pretty friendly to me and chill about it when I let them know that one of their posts helped me convince a third party voter to vote Harris instead.

I agree with this. The rule applied to justify the ban seems to be rule 3 - by posting the same article from multiple sources, it's a repost. And IIRC this user has had articles removed in the past for the same reason (in fact leading up to new rules, e.g. the ones against linking to aggregators and the one that was put in place related to posting 19 articles in a single day) - so the multiple posts removed criteria was also met.