That's what the struggle over the dnc vice chair position is about - someone won who wants to use funds to primary representatives "asleep at the wheel", so they're pulling out procedural reasons to redo it
There's a plan... It's not a sure thing, but it's building a lot of momentum
People don't know what socialism is...Most people's understanding of socialism includes the government doing basically anything
What people want is free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich. We just need to double down on that populist messaging - and when they cry out "that's socialism" we have to stop trying to run from it
Tax the rich. How are we going to pay back our deficit? Tax the rich. Why does everything suck? Because we haven't taxed the rich. What are we going to do in office? Tax the rich. Isn't that socialism? Who cares, tax the rich.
Harris lost by a razor thin margin, and there's legitimate concerns that they cheated (more directly than usual). They lost because they tried to ease up her messaging to avoid alienating the people who were always going to vote for Trump
We need to rally around what everyone wants - free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich to do it. Just chant that over and over. Anyone who does that is going to win
Well... Yeah, that's why we're taking it over. What do you think all the tours and rallies are for? The fight is on, actual progressives and opportunity chasers are positioning themselves for it... It's happening
I've been doing it for more than a decade without help, I'm not any better at spelling or misclicks
And to be clear, I can do it - I just really, really don't want to. I hate it so much, my eyes glaze over and I have to force myself every second of the way. It's not interesting, there's no puzzles involved... It's basically data entry
No, it's all different - like a normal use case is "write me a stored procedure to optionally update all fields on a row on this table" or "given the following json response, build a class to parse it into"
We have a ridiculous database and multiple new api's to integrate with every year, so this comes up a lot
I use it so much. All my Google searches for syntax or snippets? Web searches are unuseable at this point, AI can spit it out faster. But the real savings? Repetitive code. I suck at it, I always make typos and it's draining. I just toss in a table or an api response and tell it what I want and boom
It probably does write 75% of my code by lines, but maybe 5% of the business logic is AI (sometimes I just let it take a crack at a problem, but usually if I have to type it out I might as well code it)
What it's good at drains my concentration, so doing the grunt work for me is a real force multiplier. I don't even use it every day, but it might be a 3x multiplier for me and could improve
But here's the thing - programmers are not replaceable. Not by other humans, not by AI - you learn hyper specific things about what you work on
No, you can't. You can reduce your consumption, and that's great
But you have to eat. You have to wear clothes. You likely have to drive and to pay rent or buy appliances. You have to buy entertainment, because honestly most everything is monitised to crazy levels.
You can't opt out. You can be a different kind of shopper. You can be an anomolus data point. But even if you live in a self built lean to and live as a freegan vegan, you've changed nothing if you've done it alone
I know how compliance works, and this is setting off all my alarm bells, and the EFF and privacy community agrees... This has truly horrifying implications
If you're going to let human rights be further erroded because it came in a pretty explanation, not much I can do. But when the next patriot act comes back to bite us, remember one thing... When they say it's about the children, it never is
No, that's backwards. You don't reduce plastic by recycling, you don't change corporate behavior by not buying their stuff
If a company loses a customer, that's nothing. If a company has less sales, that's a marketing problem. They aren't going to operate more morally now, because it's a business problem and a PR problem
Boycotts are very different. You get a block of people together, you tell them "we're all boycotting you because X", and then they see it in their numbers. You do it loudly. The investors get nervous, you've very publicly connected the cause and effect, other businesses might join in to take advantage, etc
You have to organize first, it's great to shop ethically if you can, but you're just acting as the market as a whole... Are they going to start farming more sustainably, or are they going to try to convince consumers they are? One of these things is much easier and cheaper
If you're organized, you can come back with "hey everyone, they're bullshitting us, keep up the boycott"
The dangerous part of this is that without organization, people feel like they're fixing the problem when they're not. It gives an illusion of control that isn't there
That's what they say it does. What it really does is make sites responsible for "harmful content" shown to minors
It's all completely vague. You say it just affects the kids mode accounts... The bill doesn't say anything about that. It doesn't provide any guidance on how to properly comply, just like the porn id laws.
You can't assume the government is going to use this for what they say they will. You have to look at what this would let them do as written
Ultimately, this gives the government censorship powers over what is allowed in the "open" Internet, and to IDs users in the "adult" Internet
Because that's not what this is. It's just like the porn site laws
How does a site comply? Maybe they use AI to look at your face, maybe they have you send in your license. The law isn't clear what's enough to prove it.
How long until third parties step up? Nice convenient orgs that can sell the collected data that can guarantee compliance, because they sell the data to the government directly. Or even first parties... Facebook and Google are happy to sell this kind of info on their users
This isn't about protecting kids, it's about identifying users. What they say this is for is good, what the laws actually do is far removed from that
Do not ask people how to do this. If you don't know from a web search, you shouldn't try this without backing up a full disk image and understanding how to roll it back. Or at least backing up everything you care about
It's not a particularly hard thing, but it's a very irreversible one
Well, "just asking questions" is different from asking questions - the one in quotes isn't actually a question, it's a dishonest way to slip in a point and (at a vibes level) "win" a debate with no desire to learn or seek truth
The term comes from Tucker Carlson I think, he'd make baseless accusations against people but phrase them as questions
And unfortunately, things are just that fucking crazy these days. Most political discourse (in general, it's somewhat better here) is done in bad faith at this point, I think your question would have been interpreted differently not that long ago
People are scared and angry. It helps to proactively signal you genuinely want to engage... At least somewhat
Yes, the royal families in countries like them and the UAE are absurdly rich and like showing off. They flex on the richest billionaires, because not only do they have a net value that is thought to be higher then Musk, it's not just on paper - they can spend insane amounts without worrying about hurting stock prices
They probably have food trucks like this for all kinds of restaurants, just sitting on standby. There's no way they're not legit - the whole point is to flaunt. This is probably normally used for like their kids pool parties or something
Or maybe they really did get this set up for Trump, in which case it's still definitely legit. It even has the new decor they've been bringing to their restaurants
Remember, with the super rich the inefficiency is the point. They'd probably flog everyone for shaming them or something if it came out this wasn't "real" McDonald's
"Just asking questions" is a dishonest tactic the right has been using for a long time now. You asked "how did they subvert the will of the people if they won the vote?"
That question contains multiple assertions. For one, it's repeating the mandate of the people narrative - the actions of an elected official are not the same as the will of the people. Democracy is a political system meant to serve the will of the people, it's not itself the will of the people.
It also assumes that no subversion took place... And you can't know what you don't know, but it's giving "change my mind"
That sets the starting line for arguing the will of the people wasn't subverted by disputing facts, moving goalposts, or some whataboutisms. It frames the conversation in a way that sneaks things in as default assumptions
If you don't want to be mistaken for doing this, you can word your questions more neutrally/open ended, or be more explicit in requesting information. Adding "am I missing something?" To something that isn't adding up makes it come across far more neutral and good faith. It's also just less confrontational, which is good if you don't have the full picture yet
Of course - they certainly have to be replaced.
That's what the struggle over the dnc vice chair position is about - someone won who wants to use funds to primary representatives "asleep at the wheel", so they're pulling out procedural reasons to redo it
There's a plan... It's not a sure thing, but it's building a lot of momentum