Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SA
Posts
9
Comments
684
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Same here. After several false starts over the last 30 years, 2023 was the year of the Linux laptop and server cluster for me. I've put in the work now and I am 100% sure that I'm never going back to Windows for those machines. I still have a fancy new Windows gaming machine though. I don't want to switch it to Linux because it's an Intel/Nvidia machine with three screens and a bunch of peripherals. Whoops!

  • Time? What time do you think we have? The hour is later than you think. Trump’s forces are already moving. The Nine have left Mar-a-Lago. They crossed the River Delaware on Midsummer’s Eve, disguised as lobbyists in black.

    1. Haiti is not strategically important.
    2. Haiti is a failed state. It isn't just a matter of re-establishing peace. The whole society has to be re-built.
    3. The US invested billions and billions and BILLIONS of dollars and a ton of social capital trying to rebuild a failed state in Afghanistan and it didn't work. Not only did it not work, but the US has got nothing but scorn for it. No one thinks it would be any better in Haiti.

    The US had a moment of glory when it won WW2 and then rebuilt both Japan and Europe into world class economic powers. Of course, those were highly civilized, sophisticated, and industrialized states and so America's job was easier. Places like Afghanistan, Haiti, and most of Africa...not so much.

    Any Western government would be crazy to set foot in countries like that. Maybe send some humanitarian aid, but otherwise stay the fuck out. Let their cultural peers help them out.

  • Oh I don't doubt that the "uncommited" oppose Trump, too. The problem is the Genocide Joe rhetoric and other similar bullshit. You push that narrative and it may very well have lingering effects in Trump's favor during the general election. Maybe in other elections it didnt matter quite as much, but this is Trump were talking about. Why do you and others like you not get that? Hello, knock, knock. Trump is fully embracing the Hitler playbook and aiming to be president of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth. And you want to bitch about Biden? At this moment...? SMH, it is your sort of fractious indiscipline and short-sightedness that allows fascism to gain power, laughing all the way at your stupidity and inability to mount a coherent defence of democracy. You think you have nothing to lose, but you do. Things can get much, much worse.

  • Right, but Congress votes along party lines so that isn't much of a remedy. The remedy is just as flawed as the process that leads to political bad acting in the first place. That's why people look to a (supposedly) non-partisan body like SCOTUS to resolve the issue, and why SCOTUS becoming partisan is such a big deal.

    But your larger point that the system has broken down is well-taken. Much of how government functions successfully is based on unspoken conventions and norms of behavior. When a large proportion of the population actually WANTS someone like Trump, you have a very serious problem. No democratic structure or form of government can save the people from themselves forever. Sure, gerrymandering and other dirty tricks make a difference, but at the end of the day Trump really will get almost half the vote. He's not the representative of some small fringe party who managed to ride a crazy set of circumstances to power, like Hitler did. Trump represents one of only two major parties and will legitimately get support from right around half of those who vote, which is just crazy when you think about it.

    What the actual fuck happened that we stand on the precipice of such madness?

  • Yeah, the Supreme Court's record on key issues is not great. Citizens United, for example, is at the root of a lot of the current troubles.

    But a big part of the problem is actually the structure of US democracy itself. US democracy was set up primarily to prevent tyranny, and it does that through separation of powers. And it has been successful in that regard. However, the structure the founders created also causes gridlock on key issues.

    In the US, it is relatively rare for one party to be fully in charge for any length of time. In a Westminster-style parliamentary system, on the other hand, a majority government usually gets a chance to implement their program and then they deal with the consequences in the next election. The role of the opposition is to point out all the stupid things the government does. When something goes poorly, it is clear who is to blame.

    One of the problems with the US system is that the parties can legitimately blame each other when nothing gets done, which means they can avoid accountability.

    In parliamentary systems, the government of the day bears the blame for fuck ups, whereas in the US system there is a tendency to blame the institutions. Perhaps that's why you see surveys in the US where people strongly approve of their local representative, but have very low approval of Congress overall. This lack of power and accountability for the government is also why the Supreme Court is such a huge force in the US. Gridlock doesn't change the fact that decisions need to be made, so more and more key decisions are being made either by the Supreme Court or by presidential decree.

    Also, having a President is just a bad idea. I believe the US only has a President because Washington was so revered at the time. Having such a singular, king-like office with actual power inevitably creates a cult of personality. In contrast, parliamentary systems turn the king or his representative into a powerless ceremonial position that stays silent on political issues.

  • This is a strange situation, for sure. The age requirement you bring up is a good comparison. Age is something you are, not something you've done, possibly done, or definitey not done, so there isn't as much to argue about.

    However, what if some 33 year-old decided to run and had the support of one of the two big parties, and just lied about her age? Presumably, that would require a finding of fact and would be adjudicated by the federal courts, not Congress or each state legislature or Attorney General.

    Your example makes it pretty clear that even something supposedly "self-executing" still needs a back-up plan. Another interesting example is the 2000 election, where it was the Supreme Court that arbitrated the final vote, which decided the winner of the presidential election (incorrectly, it seems, based on later statistical analysis). Nasedon these two examples, I don't entirely understand their reasoning for pushing the decision about eligibility to Congress. While an election is for a political office, the process of running an election is supposed to be apolitical.

    What the US really needs is a non-partisan, apolitical, independent federal electoral commission.

  • I thought I read that the decision was unanimous. If the liberals and conservatives on the court agree, it seems unlikely that packing the court would change the decision.

    Also, as much as I'd love to see Trump excluded from ballots, we all know that states like Texas would turn around and do the same to Biden, just out of spite. It would change the nature of democracy, in a bad way, if individual states could just randomly decide to exclude candidates they don't like. Heck, what would stop them from excluding ALL candidates of a particular party, except perhaps some token losers or quislings no one ever heard of?

  • Its not really a tale as old as time if you're only going back to the 1970s. I don't think it was very common in the ancient world to provide military aid to your ally while also providing aid to their adversary, unless you secretly wanted to screw over your ally as well.

  • Yes, you can delete commands from the history. They added a TUI command inspector, which gives you more information on commands (date/time of last run, a time series of command runs, exit codes, etc.). You can delete history entries from this inspector.

    In terms of disabling the up arrow remap, it's just a flag in the configuration file (detailed for each distro in the installation instructions).

    I haven't used atuin a lot yet, but I sure like having a fast, full screen command history with fuzzy search.

  • I'm giving atuin a try right now and the first thing I noticed is what you just said about the up arrow. I don't need to invoke the full atuin command history screen when I just want to quickly edit the last command. In its default state, the up arrow does the same thing as ctrl-r so it isn't particularly useful, in my opinion. The developer suggests making it more useful by setting the up arrow to invoke a "local" command search, meaning a search of commands that were used in the current directory. Alternatively, you can disable the remapping of the up arrow key and just invoke atuin using ctrl-r. I think that's what I will try next.

  • What? You clearly didn't read the thread. This was his comment:

    "China killing literally no one, absolute scum of the earth!"

    Edit: Also, I didn't try to excuse US killing. I just can't believe that anyone would claim that China has killed literally no one and then set that up against a claim that the US has killed tens of millions.