jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,735

Joined

2 yr. ago

So I've seen a fair number of people claim that Trump outperforming downballot is a sign of some cheating.

Question I have in response is why would the GOP bother to only cheat in the presidential election? Seems like if they were going to go all in on cheating, they'd rig it more soundly in their favor. Maybe they would have let Robinson take a dive because of his particular circumstances, but they would have assured themselves at least a supermajority in the state legislature to compensate.

It seems a simpler explanation is that people didn't vote Republican, they voted "Trump". Or also plausible that some of them didn't vote "Trump" so much as they voted "not the woman of color with a foreign sounding name".

With the caveat that we can accommodate everyone so long as sufficient people put in their fair share of effort. In an ideal world that will mean very short working hours and/or nicely early retirement/late entry into the work force.

Certainly the usual talking heads are spoiled rich guys that have never known labor and have not done their fair share, but it is a difficult thing to balance to make sure we do take care of each other but make sure enough people are engaged to successfully do that

While it has been on the fence, it broke pretty hard for Trump even as Democrats won the governor, lt governor, and AG...

They might not be fully onboard with generic Republican but they are all in on MAGA... A Trump would probably give them a strong win.

The fact they took a copout path to not speak to the important part is a worrisome sign. If the matter were actually before them, they may rule it as unconstitutional, but they seem to be inclined to have the matter never be technically before them.

A district ruling against the order? Let it stand without taking up the case and potentially setting it nationwide. The people have no standing to appeal because they won their case.

Oh look, a jusge in Texas ruled in favor of the order, all of a sudden the government is shuffling immigrants around and deporting all birthright citizens from that jurisdiction.

So when someone has tried to rationalize ending birthright citizenship, they fixate in the "and subject to the jusrisdiction".

So they argue that a child born to parents who are citizens elsewhere are subject to the jurisdiction of the parents country of origin. To make this leap they say that language matching the intent should have been "and exclusively subject to the jurisdiction". Or else they might claim it can only apply to parents legally in the country, but that didn't let them block visa holders like they would want.

So technically it shouldn't still be able to make stateless individuals even with their rationalization, but that is of no comfort in any practical terms.

The ability to shop around for a favorable jusrisdiction is quite potent when rearranging people is supremely easy. Ship the kids to Texas then start deporting them.

They might be able to avoid a real supreme Court case by backing off in local jurisdictions causing the cases to no longer have standing and just keep it up in jurisdictions that are friendly to the administration.

Question is whether he dislikes Silwa or just recognizes he can't just spend Silwa into sufficient popularity.

However if he funds a "plausible Democrat", he might split the left vote.

You joke but he might like that just fine. Two progressive candidates splitting the progressive vote could hand an easier victory to a right winger.

Of course, this guy is a city mayor, so he's not doing federal taxes.

It is at least plausible that taxation could cause a move, but if you are rich in NYC moving out would be forfeiting some of the prestige. Who wants to admit that money issues caused them to leave "billionaires row"?

Yeah but he's doing it for those NYC liberal elites, so improving their way of life is a bad thing you see.

Having a head of state immune from criminal prosecution seems to be a thing Americans wouldn't abide... right?

Ah yes survivorship bias.

Becomes easier to internalize when you get old enough to start to see the "crap new stuff" when you were young become the "stuff that lasts forever".

I didn't build a home but did buy a house that was recent construction. We had an inspector go over the place and he was shocked...

Evidently they actually did a respectable job building the house, evidently the best foundation and attic he had ever seen. He found a couple of things due to settling and some minor wear, but everything was just done right.

I hope you mean primaries, because voting them out at the general election doesn't exactly get you better results.

I'll go a bit further and say this particular hill is not the best one to choose, as presidents have long unilaterally launched military operations and it's been broadly declared legal, even if it makes no sense. Changing the law would be good, but as the law stands, it's a hard argument to make that Trump should be impeached because of his unilateral decision to strike Iran but every other president in recent history shouldn't have been impeached over their unilateral strikes.

Need to select some way in which he has behaved illegally, in a way that looks corrupt, and in a way that is different than other presidents that have been given free passes. He seems to give such circumstances pretty routinely, so I don't know why you'd go for this one.

I hope that's the net result, just afraid that so many others will be dismissive of someone asserting autism, particularly with certain folks seeming to think being autistic is a license to be inconsiderate while claiming it also means you are smart and so is worth declaring a self-diagnosis.

From what I've seen if an online store provides a 16 bit classic without a reimplementation, it's bundled with dosbox.

Of course, I'm pretty much blanking on any classic Win16 titles of note. As far as I recall the significant games just kept being DOS games with at most launch from icon. I suppose original Myst because QuickTime, but they released a Win32 build. But this 16 bit stuff was a speculation, this is about the 32 bit stuff that isn't reasonably accommodated without a 32 bit runtime and certain bits being at odds with Flatpak isolation architecture.

I'm not sure exactly what you expect of him?

It's not a tantrum, just a statement of limitation. The primary reason for Bazzite to exist is to have a SteamOS-like Fedora. He mentions, in depth, how the 'simple' answer about using flatpak doesn't work, because flatpak imposes isolation in ways that are incompatible with the use case.

His options seem to be to be "polite" and quiet right up until the change gets approved and implemented and only then yank the rug out from his community, or make the broader community know the implications of removed 32-bit userspace support.

This seems to be the whole point of soliciting feedback, to know what you are likely to break. It would be supremely odd if you make a proposal, solicit feedback, and call any mention of a bad consequence a 'tantrum' when that was the whole point of framing it as a proposal.

Seems like he needs either Steam to go 64-bit or for Fedora to keep 32-bit since flatpak can't help and, presumably, he doesn't want to try to take on the maintenance burden of trying to carry forward Fedora's 32-bit rpms for the same reason Fedora is trying to get out of carrying them forward. Assuming the broad community decides Fedora 32-bit userspace is still needed, then it's far less incremental work for Fedora to maintain along 64-bit than it is to independently add it back.

improved how we recognize and diagnose it.

Well, we at least have changed how we recognize and diagnose it, I'm not totally convinced it's 100% an "improvement". We've kind of jumbled up a whole bunch of people under a common umbrella and diluted the implications of the term, to the point where it tells you negligible practical information when someone is described as "autistic" or "on the spectrum".

Ok, I'm going to make a new nutritional supplement: "oops! all electrons!"