This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.

Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.

Alaska’s top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.

Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.

But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.

Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.

TL;DR: I’ll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.

Racists would pay quite a bit of money to be able to target certain ethnic groups.

John Oliver sometimes runs random out of context clips of MILF Manor and I’m not sure actually watching them in context would make them any less ridiculous.

I didn’t know I was learning a life skill at the time.

The House of the Dead 2 was a really popular arcade game at the time, so adapting the preexisting game into an at-home typing trainer was actually genius innovation.

There was. If you map that onto the growth in population you’ll see that tickets per person has been dropping since about 2000.

Typing of the dead

Still my favorite example of gamification: take a useful task and make it so fun that people will gladly devote hours and hours of their time to it.

If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead

I (and all the people and organizations that have worked throughout the last century to get incendiary weapons banned as anti-personnel weapons) generally feel that the method of killing matters, and that some methods are excessively cruel or represent excessive risk of long term suffering.

The existing protocol on incendiary weapons recognizes the difference, by requiring signatory nations to go out of their way to avoid using incendiary weapons in places where civilian harm might occur. Even in contexts where a barrage of artillery near civilians might not violate the law, airborne flame throwers are forbidden. Because incendiary weapons are different, and a line is drawn there, knowing that there actually is a difference between negligently killing civilians with shrapnel versus negligently killing civilians with burning.

There are degrees of morality and ethics, even in war, and incendiary weapons intentionally targeting personnel crosses a line that I would draw.

The moral high ground is absolutely critical in war. War is politics by other means, and being able to build consensus, marshal resources, recruit personnel, persuade allies to help, persuade adversaries to surrender or lay down their arms, persuade the allies of your adversaries not to get involved, and keep the peace after a war is over, all depend on one’s public image. There are ways to wage war without it, but most militaries that blatantly disregard morals find it difficult to actually win.

In this case? The entire military strategy of Ukraine in this war is highly dependent on preserving the moral high ground.

The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.

This is an area where it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.

So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn’t enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it’s morally reprehensible, and I’d prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.

Wait is there a way to invent awful things and then patent troll so that nobody can actually bring them to market?

Twitter has accounts that Brazil says violates Brazilian law.

Brazil took steps to shut down those accounts in Brazil.

Twitter refused to cooperate, going as far as to fire all of its Brazilian staff, so that it can’t be reached by the Brazilian courts.

The Brazilian courts ordered all of Twitter be blocked until they comply with local law that they designate a corporate representative who can be served by court processes.

Brazilian ISPs complied with the court order to block Twitter.

Starlink did not comply, and Brazilian courts froze SpaceX’s Brazilian assets, including bank accounts, and started making moves towards de-licensing Starlink, including its 23 ground stations located in Brazil.

The issue escalated to the full Brazilian Supreme Court, who ruled that the assets should remain frozen until Starlink starts complying with court orders.

Now Starlink says it will comply with the court order.

Why are you sticking with a specific spectrum? You made it hard to read in service of a requirement that doesn’t make any sense.

Are you under the impression that the water is recycled back in, like in a closed loop?

This is exactly backwards. People in cities consume fewer resources per capital than people in rural areas, who can’t take advantage of the same economies of scale when it comes to transportation infrastructure, energy infrastructure, public utilities, physical supply chains, and all sorts of services in modern life, from seeing a doctor to repairing a broken window to borrowing a library book to getting a babysitter.

It’s rural areas that destroy more land, consume more water, generate more pollution, and emit more greenhouse gases, on a per capita basis, than dense areas.

Realistically, a lot of it could just be continuation of existing Biden policy:

• Aggressive antitrust enforcement from the FTC and DOJ, slowly changing the inertia of the last 40 years of allowing consolidation and the neutering of century-old antitrust laws.
• Continued pro-labor rulings from the NLRB to give workers more bargaining power as we unionize at Starbucks, Amazon, and other major workforces. Big union wins at automakers, airlines, logistics companies have emboldened new unionization drives at places like VW provide the momentum that need to be backed by government. Even places where unions have seen setbacks, like Mercedes Benz in Alabama, management has been running scared and trying to stave off unions with promises of unprecedented raises (which they’ve since reneged on after the union vote failed). We need to keep the pressure on, especially as the business cycle potentially turns to a tougher job market.
• Marijuana rescheduling is proceeding along, and hopefully will be complete by the end of Biden’s term. The next administration will need to defend it in court, and implement the details for things like banking and medical research and licensing.

Some Biden policies need to be bolstered with a combination of both continued executive action and new laws passed through Congress:

• Many of Biden’s environmental regulations have been rolled back in the courts. A Harris admin should keep pushing on these fronts, but with coverage from Congress where possible.
• Same with economic/workplace regs. The Department of Labor’s minimum wage exemption guidelines are being challenged in the courts right now, with Biden trying to push for the minimum salary of overtime-exempt workers to be at least $58k next year (the $44k minimum took effect on July 1, 2024). The FTC’s noncompete regulation, which would prohibit noncompete agreements for almost all workers, is tied up in the courts now.
• Biden’s Department of Education has tried to implement student loan forgiveness, and lost at the Supreme Court. Now their watered down measures (easier repayment plans, interest forgiveness for certain borrowers) are in the courts, too. New legislation could fix this.

Abortion, contraception, and family planning in general needs a combination of both strong executive action and new legislation:

• Biden’s administration has fought, with mixed success, to make sure that state bans on abortion don’t interfere with federal priorities. DoD has official policy that pays for servicemembers and their families to travel to states where abortions are legal, if necessary to get care. DOJ and HHS are fighting to make sure that states can’t prevent life saving care that some extremists believe constitute abortion. The FDA has expanded access and availability of abortion medication through telehealth and prescriptions by mail.
• Legislative areas worth fighting for include bolstering the authority of Medicare and FDA to preserve access to abortion and contraceptive care, including across state lines, removing the ban on federal funding for abortions, etc.

These are all pretty modest, but very important. The actual machinery of government is immensely important, and we need people who are effective at making sure everything is working for the people.

So just fuck the 700,000 who live there, then? Don’t give them the right to political representation that everyone else in the country has?

Each change is less costly to store than each comment, and the system processes millions of comments per day.

What “cooking chemicals” are in grains that are harvested from a plant and then dried?

During World War II, the telegraph interception guys would figure out which enemy units were where, even without having broken the codes, because each telegraph operators each had their own “fist,” or distinct patterns in how they punched in the Morse code, and people listening to the signals day in and day out could learn to distinguish them even when dealing entirely in encrypted text.

In modern times, attribution of hacker groups include other indicators include what time zones certain people seem to be active in, what their targets are (and aren’t), hints about installed language support or keyboard layouts or preferred punctuation or localized representations of numbers. For example, you can tell here on Lemmy when someone uses different types of quotation marks a decent indication of what country that person might be from, even in a totally English language thread.

I get how it works with wifi connections, and Bluetooth scanning (since that’s a peer to peer protocol that needs to broadcast its availability), and obviously the OS-level location services, but I’m still not seeing how seeing wifi beacons would reveal anything. For one, pretty much every mobile device OS now uses MAC randomization so that your wifi activity on one network can’t be correlated with another. And for another, I think the BSSID scanning protocol is listen only for client devices.

Happy to be proven wrong, and to learn more, but the article linked doesn’t seem to explain anything on this particular supposed threat.