HIV ‘vaccine’ could be made for just $40 a year for every patient
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 345Joined 1 yr. ago
sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
345
Joined
1 yr. ago
Honestly I hate the fact that browsers' default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their "default" CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn't look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser's CSS, and I as a developer shouldn't have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.
Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style...
The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress...
If that were the case anymore, it would've happened after the 1912 election when Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive party got more votes (27.4%) and electors (88) than the Republican Taft (23.2% of the vote and 8 electors). But it didn't. Things went back to normal after that. That was also the election where the Socialist party gained the most votes (6% of the vote and 0 electors).
The Republicans and Democrats are here to stay until our voting system is overhauled.
Well, the largest group in Texas is Latinos... idk how many of them can vote and how mant would actually vote blue though.
Finnish spelling is very consistent with its phonology. "a" and "u" are pronounced kind of similar to as they are in Italian or Spanish or something, except further back in the mouth. So yes
Andy Beshear.
Realistically it's going to be Josh Shapiro, Roy Cooper, or Mark Kelly. Shapiro because he'd guarantee the Pennsylvania vote and tear anyone apart in a debate, Cooper because he'd secure the NC vote and probably boost the southern vote in general, and Kelly because his background is as American as possible, plus he'd get us Arizona. Tim Walz is another likely pick imo, partially because Minnesota vote and all, but he's not as appealing in a campaign as many of the other choices.
Out of all of these, Shapiro seems like the strongest choice to me if he takes off his glasses. Cooper probably offers the most up-front and is exactly what Americans think of when they hear the words "vice president", but Shapiro would probably perform the most impressively in public speaking & debates, and Kelly would probably give the best public image.
Beshear probably is the most progressive and has the best platform out of all of the likely candidates, but he's made the critical mistake of being from Kentucky, which is definitely NOT a swing state, which means he doesn't by default guarantee extra votes. The Democrats would have to run a very good campaign to utilize Beshear's full potential, but considering all the finding pouring in I think it'd work out in their favor.
The Democrats will not put 2 women or 2 non-whites on the same ballot. It's just not happening. The nominee will be a white guy. Raphael Warnock is unbelievable in his campaigning/charisma, but Americans are too racist for a Harris-Warnock ballot to be a viable option in terms of votes. Same goes for Harris-Whitmer.
If Newsom becomes the VP pick I'm going to yeet myself off a cliff...
I'm pretty sure Biden is living on borrowed time now. The only reason for him not to do whatever the hell he wants is to not affect Harris' image.
I don't think it's comparable because Kenya is probably the US' primary African ally. South Africa and Nigeria are countries with more importance on the world stage, but they both aren't as consistently aligned with the US as Kenya is, and Nigeria's government is very unstable while Kenya is abnormally stable (for Africa). Egypt is very tied to the US in terms of military & foreign policy, but it's not as important to the US as Kenya and South Africa, and it's a corrupt dictatorship that constantly violates human rights so their opinion on our democracy doesn't really matter. The only other countries consistently aligned with the US that are comparable to Kenya are Morocco, Ghana, and Botswana, but Kenya is more critical to US efforts in Africa than them.
Kenya plays an important role in America's presence in Africa while also being relatively democratic and heavily aligned with the US, so I think their opinion matters a lot more than the average nation's.
Compared to other languages... If those other languages are Romantic, North Germanic, Dutch, Afrikaans, or Frisian. A majority of other languages are typically considered more difficult for people who only speak English.
That being said, I found Russian way easier than German at first, but that quickly stops being the case... German shares a lot of semantic/syntactic similarities with English so you can reasonably assume that a lot of German constructions will easily translate to English, for Russian though it's more unfamiliar and you have to put more effort into thinking Russian-y. The main thing that made German way harder at first is German declensions... ugh... Russian has a complex declension system but it's extremely regular, while German declensions are pretty irregular and the declension of articles is especially bad because their forms overlap a lot. Adjective declension is similarly bad. German word order also fucked with me a lot but it's decently rigid so you get it quickly.
That is intentionally misrepresenting what he said entirely. His point was that policies don't win elections. If they did, Republicans would basically not exist now.
Public image wins elections. Obama was only able to overcome American voters' racial biases and win 2008 because of his public speaking abilities and building his character over the course of the years beforehand. He also actually did pretty well as a president, at least significantly better than the presidents since Reagan imo, which definitely secured him the re-election regardless of his incredible charisma, but no amount of good policies in his previous campaigns could've made up for charisma.
Since Biden just dropped out, it's Kamala's job now to secure the election by improving her public image. She's already gotten on that to some extent by recently starting to emphasize how much she contributed to many of the key good policies throughout her Vice Presidency – it tells voters about what kinds of policies she supports, yes, but it's mainly a way to tell voters "hey, I've been here this entire time, I've implemented all this amazing stuff despite it never breaking the news, I'm competent and fit for the job"; the image of efficiency & competence is more important than the actual policies themselves.
A "leftie" Project 2025 counterpart would just make most voters immediately think dems (and Harris) as more divisive and even petty/retaliatory. It's stupid to think like that, yes, but voters are pretty irrational. This includes like at least 1/10 of the democrats' voterbase (and I'd wager probably a lot more in important swing states with a high suburban&rural population like Michigan) which is basically slightly conservative middle-class centrists who would prefer progressive policies (excluding some of the socially progressive ""identity politics"" as they call it) but are easily pushed into "collaborator" territory if they feel like dems start being too "radical", too "divisive", too "virtue signaling", etc. Such problems are inevitable when you brand yourself as "the party of compromise".
Skill issue
That's one difficult thing, it can be pretty hard to tell from the outside whether it's the product of grooming or not. The same goes for a lot of very legal types of relationships though, so I don't think the possibility of it happening is a reason to completely criminalize it. The difference compared to the other things listed (children and animals) is those things can't consent, it's an impossibility.
I think enforcing some arbitrary age gap maximum for siblings though would make sense – incest between parents and children should be illegal full stop imo, and it's hard to believe that any relationships between siblings who are 10 years apart isn't from grooming.
That being said, I'm not sure that with our current shitty justice, law, and health system (in the US) that it's worth it to start giving equality to those types of relationships considering we just don't have the infrastructure or society to effectively prevent the legality being used to facilitate grooming. Society is too corrupt to prevent or bring justice for abuse at the scale needed. But people made similar arguments for incest being illegal as for interracial relationships being illegal so maybe I'm wrong.
Fascism in the most vague sense that you can get while still being accurate is enforcement of a hierarchy, practically no social mobility, based on traits like ethnicity, sex, wealth, etc. supposed to be the "natural order" of society; often involving some sort of mythological/religious/idealized "past" or predecessor society/civilization which was then upended by some sort of evil group(s) (the targetted groups/scapegoats), which stole from us and which are an evil that need to be stopped. This, of course, is slightly different from how Mussolini's fascism was originally visualized – which was a corporatist nationalist dictatorship about "might"/the strong coming out on top (translated into militarism) justified by religion/mythology (in fascist Italy's case about being the successor to the great ancient Rome and seeing through to a greater Roman Empire) – but it's how the world has become to understand the concept of fascism as time went on.
This is the reason many see capitalism as sort of "diet fascism" – it's entirely about a hierarchy based around socioeconomic class/groups, with highly restricted social mobility (although not completely closed off as fascism's is), and it's seen that your place in the hierarchy in a hypothetically purely capitalistic system is the natural order of things – your place in the hierarchy is supposedly based on how hard you work, rich people are rich because they've simply worked smarter and harder than the people under them, and anyone can go up the hierarchy if they simply just are a better person. Of course, in reality we know this doesn't work and among other things generational wealth & systematic roadblocks created by the wealthy play a major factor in this hierarchy, but I digress. The reason classical liberalism / free market capitalism hates class equality, hates a system like socialism which calls for abolishing unjust hierarchies, is because it sees the abolition of the socioeconomic/class-based hierarchy as going against the natural order and forcibly placing people in the "wrong" places in the hierarchy (all on the same level) when some people deserve to be below others because they're lazy, illegal immigrants, "criminals", etc. In essence, they see equality not as equality, but as an "upside-down" hierarchy where the former upper class is forced below the formerly marginalized groups; to a more privileged person, equality feels like oppression. Capitalism needs an underclass to function, in a capitalistic system people with certain traits always have an unequal distribution throughout the hierarchy (scapegoated/marginalized groups significantly tending to pool at the bottom with only a few "token" examples truly traversing upwards, and people closer to the top of the pyramid being less and less prone to falling down the hierarchy). It sounds a lot like fascism, because fascism and capitalism are ideologies/systems with loosely equivalent structures but capitalism being far less pronounced.
Additionaly, classical liberalism & moreso conservative capitalism are centered around reggressing to a supposed "golden age" of the past where things were better before "they" ruined it (whoever "they" is and what specifically "they" did is vague and changes from belief to belief but usually includes taxation/redistribution of wealth/power away from the people at the top of the hierarchy, or some shift in the hierarchy). It's like a much less pronounced form of the mythologized predecessor civilization/society of fascism, instead of hundreds or thousands of years ago it's more like 30-40 years ago.
Fascism in the way we currently understand it doesn't even strictly require dictatorial/autocratic rule, it can be enforced in a technically "democratic" system as long as certain groups are excluded from the democratic process. Of course, the line between democracy, broader oligarchy, narrower oligarchy, and autocracy becomes blurrier the more of the population you exclude, since democracy is more of a spectrum than anything, but generally there's a lot of possible fascist systems where people would still consider it democratic enough. Your perspective is pretty deeply tied to which group you belong to as well – the average German thought Nazi Germany was a democracy even when Poland was invaded and throughout much of the war, but obviously the Roma and Jewish populace being genocided would definitely not agree. Capitalism does this exclusion to a large extent too – just usually not in the form of outright completely banning a group from participating – and the upper classes have signficantly more say in the democratic process, to the point where the upper classes can choose to completely eliminate options they collectively dislike enough from the equation regardless of the consent of the lower classes.
Overall while fascism and capitalism aren't a complete overlap, fascism is for the most part a progression of capitalism (or, as more and more people see it, capitalism is a derivation of fascism and/or feudalism where we keep trying to patch up the flaws using a few socialist/progressive/democratic qualities) and pretty much requires a capitalist (or capitalist-adjacent) system to exist. Fascism can't use, say, a socialist system because socialism inherently requires working towards the abolition of the power structures/hierarchies which fascism is based around. Of course, in fascist systems the supposed "superior" class often has power redistributed to them in the form of e.g. social welfare benefits and infrastructure investments, which isn't straight up classical liberalism obviously, but that doesn't necessarily violate capitalism/the capitalist power structures as a whole, it's just using a different form of capitalism in order to keep the currently-not-scapegoated but also-not-highest castes content and thinking that things aren't so bad.
If you have any questions about this or can't see the reasoning of certain parts, I'm sure I (or someone else) will be happy to answer it for you.
I agree but it could be worse (Pop!_OS)
Trump wasn't carrying. There's your problem. He didn't have self-defense and white boy goated with the sauce almost caught him lacking, but instead of busting it down sexual style he let us down failure style
What kind of cheese tho
US international layout, or make a custom layout (KbdEdit is multiplatform but there's free Linux programs to do it too)
Are you suggesting that we do it to expose peoples' medical information to the public..? Or am I misinterpreting this
I think them being openly Republican lets everyone know well enough that they lack empathy/humanity. It's on people (well, more like our education system to teach people) to recognize that, WITHOUT violating basic privacy rights. Plus, knowing the publics' ableism and perception of mental disorders, people will probably start suggesting that ASD, ADHD, etc. should disqualify you from having a gun if the laws aren't just listing out arbitrary diagnoses.
Personally, I currently live in a very red part of Georgia (not for much longer though) and I'm pretty queer and have ADHD and stuff, so I'd rather not let the government even know what guns I own. When the state or federal government becomes social democratic, I'll be completely fine with it
(Boost for Lemmy went fucky wucky so I reposted this comment)
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
It's a Brtish news article so they actually do pay about that much for insulin, if they pay at all.