There’s nothing subtle about Trump. So when he say something blatantly stupid and evil, it doesn’t need translation or interpretation. If he says, “we’re going to ‘fix’ voting so that you’ll never have to worry about voting ever again” there only ONE way to interpret that. Believe people when they show you what they really are.
It also doesn’t help that our mainstream, “liberal news media” (you know, the one that’s owned by only six corporations) is constantly running interference for Trump.
I wouldn’t know about US regulations. Just annoyed by laws which allow corporations to more or less straight up lie, be they in my country or not.
I’m pretty sure alc-free here in Finland is at most like 0.1%, low-alc (as in not counted as a regulated alcoholic beverage in regards to laws) is anything 2.9% and under.
True. The suffix -free has had so much liberal (not the party) use that when manufacturers use it, it now just means there isn’t enough for most people to detect/respond to it.
Now if someone none the wiser with an allergy or particularly strong sensitivity to something were to try that something, they get a trip to the ER.
I think part of it is that you honestly can’t say anything is “x” free. As long as the company has done due diligence and there is as little as possible then I’m ok with it.
If it’s used as a get out of jail card for bad practice then I’m against it.
Especially with alcohol. Anything with sugar will have at least a tiny amount of it ferment into alcohol. This is also why 0% BAC driving laws are nonsense.
That said, 0.1% might be perfectly reasonable over 0.5%.
Just wait until you hear about “synthetic” motor oil.
(It’s been made from regular petroleum sources for a long time. It was argued in court that “synthetic” refers to a certain level of quality, not that it’s actually built synthetically from something other than oil out of the ground.)
They’ve wanted that forever. Once Goursich was chosen the legal world knew what was coming. A legal podcast I used to listen to called it once he was picked.
You know it’s corrupt when you can call things like that :(
Make police officers individually responsible for carrying insurance for their job.
If they can’t behave then they won’t be able to afford the insurance as the insurance company will raise the fees, and then they can’t get a job they shouldn’t be doing in the first place
Neocons said that about the legalization of gay marriage. That’s why they cheated under Trump and went for the jugular when it came to supreme court judges. And the highmindedness (and cowardice) of the Democrats in not stuffing the courts in response will haunt America and the world for decades.
In the 1980s, the number of justices on the Supreme Court remained at nine, and the appointments made were part of the standard process of filling vacancies as they occurred.
In the 1990s, the number of justices on the Supreme Court also remained at nine. The appointments made during that decade were part of the standard process of filling vacancies as they occurred.
Perhaps you should be more careful. They’re claiming, and I think accurately, that the judicial branch is making a power grab over both the legislative and executive branches. That has nothing to do with fascism.
(They may or may not be correct in the claim they’re making. We could debate that if you’re interested.)
It might be the case in the US, but usually this sentiment is being used by a fascist government to get support from the public to gut the judicial system of any power.
And unelected president… remember, we don’t actually vote the president into office. Instead, we vote, and if they feel like it, a bunch of random electors of the exclusive electoral college club actually elect our president.
That sounds fucking retarded to allow to do, yet, somehow, every time I bring it up, some idiot professor of history defends that. Like ohh, our grandfathers were so smart, they built that into the constitution… They also owned minorities and made them do the hard work around the house.
I mean it was very smart for the time when the average citizen couldn’t possibly know enough to make an informed decision and news that could change who someone would vote for could take weeks to arrive somewhere.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Both the Electoral College and the Senate were specifically created to thwart the will of The People if it was too inconvenient for the elites. What was that quote about the Senate being the “cooling saucer of democracy” or something like that?
The broken part of the legislative branch isn’t the Senate, it’s the House and the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that arbitrarily limited the number of Representatives to 438.
This means that the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth ~6x the vote of someone in California.
People in more populated areas essentially being disenfranchised for being in a more populated area. Something we should be encouraging.
Edit: I’ve been told it’s actually ~65x, not 6x. Don’t feel like doing the math right now but you can do it yourself its pretty easy. Either way its’ fucked, and if it’s actually 65x, that’s just INSANELY fucked.
Oh no that’s broken as well. But that same kind of disenfranchisement happens in the Senate. Wyoming per your example has ~600k people and California has ~39 million according to Wikipedia but both get 2 Senators. That’s what, 65x the population but the same voting power? Then there’s also the fact that unless you’ve got 60 votes in the Senate it doesn’t matter what anyone in the House wants it won’t even come up for a vote. Which means there’s a lot of comparatively empty land that can basically just hold the rest of the country hostage. Point is there’s a lot that’s broken in the legislative branch.
A couple things. First, you might need to freshen up on your Schoolhouse Rock, because this is not true:
Then there’s also the fact that unless you’ve got 60 votes in the Senate it doesn’t matter what anyone in the House wants it won’t even come up for a vote.
It’s been several decades since I’ve learned civics, but… no. Here’s what I recall:
Bills can originate from either the House or the Senate (except budget bills which always come from the House).
If the bill originates and passes in one House, it goes to the other for debate, etc. If the other house passes the bill as is, it goes to the President.
If the other house makes any amendments to the bill that the first house previously passed, it goes back to the first house again for more debate and vote. This happens again and again until we end up with a bill that both houses agree to (one reason for pork barrel spending).
This works this way regardless of which house the bill originates in. Both must agree (in some form) to the final, possibly amended, bill, before it heads to POTUS.
Second, I understand the purpose of the Senate. This is a federalized system (I imagine you understand this given we’re both on Lemmy), we are a nation made of smaller nations in many ways as each state can often be wildly different. Lately we’ve seen some of the pros and cons of such a system, but this is what we are right now at least.
So the idea is a bicameral house, with one that is meant to be a direct representative of the people, proportionate to the number of people in a district, and the other meant to represent each state (i.e. “mini nation”).
It’s just the way our entire system is structured, including state funding and such. This is federalization.
The House of Representative is meant to represent the will of their constituents (without the Reapportionment Act, could actually be representative), hence the nickname, “the people’s House.”
Conversely, The Senate exists to represent the will of their state.
These are often different, and occasionally even at odds. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
And frankly, the last decade or so has shown me that sometimes we are stupid and need saving from ourselves. If everything ran on only one House that was actually representative, it would be chaos.
How would federal funding be divvied up? Do Congressional Reps need to not only be on top of the needs and demands of their district, but they must also do the same for their state? Do you know how insane that would be? Would states even be able to continue to exist as they currently do without a Senate?
This comment is already too long so I will stop.
I get the idea people have about the Senate, but it is currently completely necessary in our government.
If I was that wrong about the voting power of a Californian, that just reinforces how disproportionate the House is (and therefore the entire federal government becomes dysfunctional).
I think a truly proportionate House to balance out the Senate could actually work pretty well (of course this is without getting into the topic of money in politics which is a whole other can of worms).
A couple things. First, you might need to freshen up on your Schoolhouse Rock, because this is not true:
The 60 vote thing is true. It’s referring to the filibuster and cloture procedures in the Senate.
When a bill comes up for consideration in the Senate, first it gets brought up for debate. A filibuster is when someone usually opposed to the bill makes this debate go on as long as possible to delay a vote on the bill. This process has been shorthanded a lot in recent years so senators merely need to indicate intent to filibuster so that the Senate can still attend to other business such as committee hearings and the whole chamber isn’t locked in by the filibuster.
Since the entire GOP is bent on obstructing the Democratic party agenda this means in practice that you need to use Cloture to end the filibuster and bring the bill up for a vote. This is why we see so many things crammed into the Budget Reconciliation bill. It’s one of the only bills that can’t be filibustered like that. For pretty much all other things if you don’t have 60 senators willing to vote for Cloture the bill is dead on arrival.
Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.
The fact that the US has to ‘pack the courts’ to get anything through shows how broken the system is.
Not that any other country is better but still, you’d think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate
One sniper inside spotted the gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, outside and looking up at the roof, observing the building and disappearing, according to the officer who spoke to CBS News. The sniper observed Crooks as he returned to the building, sat down and looked at his phone. At that point, one of the local snipers took a picture of Crooks.
Next, the local sniper observed Crooks looking through a rangefinder, an instrument routinely used by marksmen to determine the distance of a target, and he immediately radioed to the command post, according to the local law enforcement officer. The local sniper also attempted to send the photo of the gunman up the chain of command.
Officials then lost track of Crooks, who disappeared, but soon returned for a third time with a backpack. The local sniper team called for backup — alerting the command post that the gunman had a backpack and was walking toward the back of the building.
Two other municipal police officers who heard the call for back-up attempted to climb onto the roof. Butler County Sheriff Michael Sloupe told CBS Pittsburgh station KDKA that an armed municipal officer with Butler Township was hoisted by another officer onto the roof of the building where the gunman had taken a position. Crooks focused his rifle towards the officer who ultimately let go, falling off the roof. Moments later, the shooter began firing into the crowd.
In a reasonable world, Crooks wouldn’t have even been allowed to go near the building. In a less reasonable world, Crooks would have been confronted by armed men as soon as they saw him look through a rangefinder. In a world that was the least bit reasonable, Crooks would have been shot the moment he took a gun out of his bag. But here we are.
In a reasonable world everyone in the vicinity would’ve left him alone. Police snipers would’ve given some tips and offered to help monitor wind conditions. Treason carries a death sentence.
In an even more reasonable world we wouldn’t have to worry about a fascist being elected, but… ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You’re forgetting that this stuff is very often just security theater and many officers are playing dress up. When shit goes down, nobody is ever prepared even when they have the correct training.
That’s the biggest problem–there is no best of the best. It’s all just hubris and who you are connected to. What separates someone in the secret service from a regular police officer is who they know and probably what sort of military background they have.
Apart from all the actual missed confrontations, it seems like you should just pay someone to be up on any building that’s a security risk. They don’t have to be super vigilant or highly trained, just the equivalent of a traffic cop working a construction site. Their presence alone would remove it as a threat.
That’s what you get for trusting Microsoft with anything…or Google…or Apple…or Facebook… stop tying your communication to these companies, they can pull the rug at any time.
You can have more than one dumb pipe to push bits through, but if the ISP can read your network traffic then you have bigger problems than a single-point-of-failure.
I’m very lucky in that regard. Not only do we have a local ISP and mobile service from a national carrier, but the electric co-op that provides our power just ran 2.5Gb/s fiber through the neighborhood and lets members use 200Mb/s on it for free.
For the most part the ISP doesn’t have a way to know you are using VoIP to contact people in a particular country (unless you are using a VoIP service owned by the ISP of course).
They didn’t fuck up, they made a design choice about the scope of the app. Are they also fucking up by not blurring the messages on screen? After all someone could be looking over your shoulder without you realizing it. Maybe Signal should ship with spyglasses.
It’s weird that apps sometimes change scope and add features that users want? Ones that contributers already did most of the work for?
Why aren’t they insisting this doesn’t need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?
That was literally what they have been saying this whole fucking time.
“The database key was never intended to be a secret. At-rest encryption is not something that Signal Desktop is currently trying to provide or has ever claimed to provide,” responded the Signal employee.
Did they make an intentional design choice which users should have been okay with like you said the first time or is this a feature users wanted? It can’t be both.
You are right to bringing up this issue and it is pretty fucking big deal inho mistakes happen but signal "leadership" has made series of questionable choice which don't quite align with the user base.
Other person is down playing it hard too. Hard to tell why as he is not really providing any good reason besides trying to "explain" it away
Not picking a fight; don't really care what you have to say in response. Just needed to share my observation that you are latching onto people in a really aggressive manner in multiple threads as of late. If that doesn't bother you then go ahead and disregard.
Unless you build your own, you have to trust your ISP to move packets, but you don’t have to rely on any third party services or give them your personal info to use social media.
Fully decentralized, open-source, and encrypted social networks exist. The only servers needed are your computer and the computers of the friends you communicate with. (See: Retroshare )
They’re just never going to get big because small, personal friend-to-friend networks can’t compete with the network effects of centralized media and a never-ending torrent of dopamine on tap.
Yor right I will just use my billions of dollars to build a global internet infrastructure and make my posts on my own phone using the os I just built in my spare time for fun its not about trust its about necessity
We had an issue a couple days ago where we couldn’t move a VIP to a new phone because the vendor wanted us to perform multi-factor auth via a device from two years ago. We had to roll back the service. Our entire lives are built atop fragile digital infrastructure with broken and poorly thought-out policies.
“For some reason, the African American culture has influenced most of the student body. How? In African Americans, they have a gene for the pimp walk, which is dominant. What is the result if you cross (student name) homozygous dominant Latina with a homozygous recessive Hmong like (student name)?”
The question goes on to refer to the dominant trait as walking with a limp and the recessive trait as normal.
The teacher also claimed falling asleep in class was dominant.
And all the examples seem to be the same basic question, just different insults shoehorned in.
Sounds like they were trying to test students on how dominant/recessive genes work, but trying to make jokes so it’d feel relatable. But the jokes are just not funny at all. You have to be REAL close to someone for that to be a joke instead of an insult.
To me it sounds like none of us have context, and although inappropriate I suspect it’s far less devastating to the kids being tested than it would be to outside observers imagining themselves in the kids shoes.
My senior year had a teacher who slipped in a bunch of insider knowledge “material” into their exams to see who was paying attention/wasn’t there that day (“this ocean current should not be confused with this similarly named walk that we used to do when I was in school, if you see it spelled this incorrect way it’s the walk and not the current” (only without the latter qualifier), if any of you have ever taken this class, and didn’t miss lecture that day, you’ll know exactly which high school I went to and who’s class I’m talking about, hit me up!)
Idk that the CIA really bothers assassinating fascists anymore… Or ever. Like there was one time in Korea but they really just gave a Korean CIA guy moral support.
The US can’t afford it. Maybe if we cut government spending in half. They’re out of control and everyone is suffering because they’re destroying the value of the dollar. This issue (but not all) ready is a both sides problem.
Our military spending is not preventing us from having free college or free healthcare. Both would save us money if we switched to 100% government funded systems. No amount of military spending is preventing us from saving money.
Ahhh, boomers. They got their uni education for the price of a McChicken and still ended up as some of the dumbest and most selfish motherfuckers on the planet.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.