Could you imagine if the presidential candidates and their VP pick had to play Overcooked together for a few hours?
It wouldn’t even have to be a competition on score. You could learn so much about them so fast - their communication, ability to adapt, and how they handle frustrations.
What in the world are you talking about?
This just may be the dumbest thing I’ve heard today.
My understanding of a patent (in the US) is that it’s only for new, novel concepts, often difficult to design or conceive.
Prior art, in this context, are just examples of this concept already in use or demonstrated. If there are already examples of the idea in use by others, then your idea isn’t new (and therefore not patentable).
If people want this to be acted on, then Dems need to win.
Oh, absolutely.
Both to campaign on and to act on, unfortunately.
I think there’s a big difference between them making the small (but good) progress with legislation they’ve done this term compared to making climate a part of their campaign and bringing it up all the time. Idiots on the right will attack opponents on anything, but currently, I imagine most of the population is put off by the “she’s gonna ban ur meat and stove!!1” weirdos. Sometimes not engaging is the most effective way to keep bad arguments out of the public sphere.
Plus, there’s so much disinformation from the other side that you’re apt to lose voters that consume any amount of that crap.
If something doesn’t energize your base and it makes you lose votes from outside your base, it’s a net loss to campaign on. It seems that climate change is currently one of those issues.
I’m convinced our media is hell-bent on promoting Trump at any opportunity.
I feel like Trump could do anything on that stage and the story pushed out by the media will be some weird criticism about how disappointing Harris’ performance was.
Like, Trump could answer every single question with a rant about how cheeseburgers just aren’t as good as they used to be and no-one would bat an eye. Then the story for weeks will be about how “Harris just wasn’t detailed enough about how her economic policies. She didn’t even mention how the Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS)/cash corn ratio would change per week over the next decade or two. Harris clearly is too light on the policy front.”
I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve come to expect the worst from our media lately.
I guess?
I’m all for voting reform, promoting easy access to voting for everyone, breaking the grip of the 2 party system, and dismantling junk like the electoral college.
But we’re a little more than 2 months from a major election. It’s unlikely that these ideas are going to be picked up and championed as campaign promise. So it makes me wonder why they’re being parroted now. I suspect it’s to highlight that our system isn’t always great and discourage people from voting.
They’re not saying “my vote doesn’t matter”, but that’s kind of the vibe it gives off, while suggesting an unrealistic, idealistic solution. 🤷♂️
As bad as it is now, if Trump returns to power, he would make the Palestinian and Ukraine situations so much worse. Beyond that, we could see genocide here.
Because the situation is polarizing in American politics and unlikely to resolve any time soon, it seems unwise to push potentially unpopular policy with short-term gains that lose you an election to someone who would probably celebrate the end of Palestine and their people.
It’s like complaining that the roof is leaking and wondering why no-one cares while the house is on fire.
Another one of his attorneys turned to testify against him in the election fraud case.
Are you talking about the fairly recent news about Jenna Ellis? Unless I’m mistaken, she’s cooperating with a different set of fake electors cases that’s based out of Arizona.
Even as someone who follows this stuff fairly regularly, it’s impossible to keep track of all of Trump’s criminal cases… and that’s just the stuff we know about that prosecutors have picked up.
The documents case could absolutely lead to jail time if Smith can push for another judge. Cannon can’t postpone indefinitely without repercussions.
If he loses the election and if the Supreme Court stays out of it, I’d agree.
He also has sentencing scheduled in September for his felony convictions, though I don’t have a clue what that will be or what appeal timeline and whatnot looks like.
It’s frustrating to see all of this move so slowly. I know these things take time, but it feels like there was no urgency in 2021 when he left office to deal with the election interference and numerous, publicly known, criminal acts.
It’s clearly not a hoax.
You want to put Trump back in…? Did you forget how he ran things 2016-2020, plus Jan 6th, a literal (but horribly executed) coup attempt?
Given the rulings from the recent rulings from the Supreme Court, Trump will be emboldened to do whatever he wants “with immunity”. I just can’t wrap my head around how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
Add an extra column to the right side of the board.
I’m one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it’s the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren’t as common as they used to be).
To me, it’s just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn’t, who cares? Like, you wouldn’t say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux… Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.
You know fascism has a definition, right? It doesn’t mean “I don’t like it”.
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
I think this is overly naive and simplistic.
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
(I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)
The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.
So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.
So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.
Notable events:
As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.
Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.
I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.
The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.
The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.
I think it makes more sense to read that it’s a “Windows Subsystem for (running) Linux (applications/programs)”.
Pretty sure this isn’t real guys. There’s no “Do not thaw pizza” clause.
No, they’re asking about the case that did go through where he was found guilty of 34 felony convictions. The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump
He was supposed to be sentenced in September. Trump’s defense asked to delay. Prosecution didn’t object. Judge didn’t want to stick his neck on the line and accepted the delay.
I have no idea what will happen now but probably nothing meaningful anymore. It should have happened in September. I don’t know why the prosecution didn’t fight the delay, but understand why the judge did what he did.
But yeah, I completely agree with your sentiment. The momentum into nailing Trump down on crimes happened way, way, *way *too slow.