no jury would find that constituted election bribery

Why not? Are they planning to let Elon Musk bribe the jury, as well?

Teacher's Unions aren't perfect and there have been some valid complaints about them, but that's basically every union. Honestly, my biggest complaint is that teachers have unions and they're still not paid enough.

But at any rate, this is typical conservative rhetoric. "We've found (or invented) one thing we can complain about, so rather than having a rational, calm discussion about the state of things and how we can improve that thing, we want to cause the most drama, scare everybody the most, and tear everything down, while promising to replace it with something better, a promise that we'll never, ever, in a million years, deliver on."

There's this story that Mark Hammil tells about being on the set of Star Wars and he mentions to Harrison Ford that their hair should be wet, since it was just wet in the previous scene.

And Ford says something like, "This ain't that kind of movie, kid. If the audience is talking about our hair, something has already gone wrong."

Mark Hammil does an excellent Harrison Ford impression, so there's a possibility that the "kid" is part of the impression, rather than a direct quote. Also, I was doing the quote from memory, so I might have remembered it wrong.

But I also like the thought that Harrison Ford calls everyone kid.

It depends on the circumstances, but I might return.

The biggest circumstance is my management. If my manager was awesome and the termination came from the PR department or some high up mucky muck who would never interact with me normally, then I'd go back.

If the termination came from my direct manager, I'd never go back and work for that person.

If I was illegally fired by my manager and later got my job back through arbitration, and my manager was fired instead, I would probably return to the job, if for no other reason, than just to run a victory lap before leaving again.

To an oyster, a pearl is sort of like a benign cyst more than a treasure.

He's learning that he needs to be careful with her about what time of the month it is.

...but if the girlfriend moon is in that phase, then wouldn't the boyfriend moon, which is directly next to her, also be in nearly the same phase?

I always assume these types of reviews are jokes, because the alternative, that they're serious, is sort of insulting to me as a member of the same species as the person who wrote it.

I don't hate joke reviews, but I don't like when the overall rating itself is affected by the joke ratings.

Why not Windows 11? Because China, like many other non-US governments, no longer trusts American companies with their software and services. This approach is all about digital sovereignty.

I never understood why any country would allow their government computers to run proprietary software from a foreign (to them) company.

I'm sure that China had access to a lot of Windows source code as part of their previous agreement, but it's far too big a risk, really, for any country, even the United States, to run Windows.

As far as I'm concerned, China is decades late in making this decision, and it's still ahead of a lot of (most?) governments.

Several thoughts.

1. Imagine you have cancer and you're working through it on your spouse's Disney healthcare, but you also need to work full-time to make ends meet. You might be forced to quit your job or only do part-time hours so that you can continue on the better health insurance. Forcing people into this sort of financial dilemma is... well, I think the most accurate term is "evil."
2. As they said in the article, this affects lower income employees more. If you're a high income employee at Disney, maybe you don't need your spouse to work. So, this will disproportionately remove lower income people from their insurance, while higher income people receive twice the healthcare benefits. This makes very little sense.
3. This is more evidence that the very concept of tying workplace to healthcare is madness. In the end, universal healthcare is just the optimal solution.

Why don't we already have universal, single-payer healthcare? Let's not forget that it's the corporations and ultra-wealthy people who have the most sway in our government. Look, here's Disney bitching and moaning about how awful and expensive it is to offer adequate healthcare for their employees. So obviously, you'd think they should just support universal healthcare and be done with all of this healthcare expense.

But the truth is that they don't want to. They want to tie healthcare to the company because smaller companies often have worse healthcare packages because they have less negotiating power, and this is a way of enslaving people. Tying them to one company so that they can never leave. But also, make it as cheap as possible in the meantime. Reduce benefits just enough so that they constantly suffer but can't afford to leave. They want to have it both ways. Employees not getting enough benefits as well as getting enough benefits that they can't afford to leave.

This is entirely inhumane.

"Hate" is probably too strong of a word, but Trump clearly has contempt for our troops.

Here is a story where he clearly thinks troops are stupid, and he showed it by insulting a dead soldier to the soldier's general father.

Here's a story where Trump staffers got into a pushing match with cemetery officials at Arlington National Cemetery because Trump wanted to take a political video and photo op, even though it was illegal and disrespectful.

Also note that government NEEDS stability, which Linux very much wasn’t until recently (and arguably still isnt); this is why Windows has starting becoming a liability.

I was using Linux in the late 90s when my Linux machine would run for months, only being rebooted when I decided to do a kernel upgrade, and meanwhile everybody was running Windows 95, one of the least stable OSes that I've ever used. It literally had a counter baked into the OS that caused a crash if you ran it for a certain amount of days, I think 30. If stability was so important, they'd have switched to Linux back then.

Even in the late 90s, the UI was decent enough as long as you had a decent administrator. I don't think casual users could be expected to set up Linux back then, but that's not a government type of use case.

Wonderful, thanks for looking that up.

I remember learning about that bug years after the OS came out, and not being too surprised that it was never fixed.

Windows 95 crashed so often that you'd basically have to specifically do nothing with the machine to ever get that crash. And even then, you'd just assume that it was crashing like Windows 95 always did anyway.

So you'd be unlikely to see or recognize that bug unless you were specifically testing for uptime issues.

Time to go to the bodycam footage, am I right guys?

It makes sense that emojis are controlled similar to votes, since they're basically a type of vote.

I was thinking the anime is giving enough detail to vaguely understand the world, but that it didn't feel like good world building.

It's disappointing to hear that an anime-only experience feels lost. If they don't do a good enough job, they might not have a next season. It would be like stopping the story right after the introduction.

This episode was too rushed.

I don't greatly disagree with some of the overall plot decisions they made, such as combining two different Damuel scenes into one. And some of the specifics about how they gathered the egg.

But they changed the way Ferdinand fought the lizard creatures, which is actually a relatively important but minor plot point from Rozemyne's perspective. I think this was done this way because the episode was cramming too much stuff in, and so they didn't have time to show the correct scene. But the important thing is that, after this episode, Rozemyne now has slightly different knowledge compared to the LN. I'm guessing they're planning to just let this go.

And they ignored a lot of the religious stuff, like how they had to go collect the egg on a certain day, or what Liedenshaft's wrath would be. Rozemyne at this point is supposed to be pondering the difference between the religious view and what might be called a scientific view.

They did get a lot of the emotional stuff between Damuel and Brigitte pretty correct.

I think they did a kind of a shit job with the Effons and the Effon hunt. They're supposed to be headbanging trees that initially seem to be singing death metal or something, but when you approach them, it turns out it's just horrible screaming.

Also, the part where Rozemyne attacked the Nanseb showed her swinging her mana knife way too hard. She's putting her mana into it, so it just goes through like a hot knife through butter, and she knows it. With that blade and her enormous mana in it, she won't have trouble cutting almost anything. What's shown in the anime looks far too dangerous for the sorts of things that she's allowed to do.

My essential problem with the concept of two party consent is that the problem isn't, and never has been, people recording things that they personally see or hear.

The problem is what they do with those recordings.

I think if a person has real memory problems and records audio of all their conversations just so they can make notes for themselves later, few would find fault with that, regardless of consent.

If a person recorded everything but is was like a black box on an airplane, literally only reviewed after something horrible happens to the person but otherwise inaccessible to them or anyone else, I think few would have a problem with that.

If you're recording people with the intent to distribute the recordings or to train AI, many people would have a problem with that.

Maybe you can achieve something reasonable with two party and reasonable exceptions, just to make it easier on law enforcement. But I tend to think it makes more sense to start with one party consent and then strictly control what people can do or intend to do with recordings that lack consent.

I am against the death penalty, but people like this make me want to make special exceptions. Like, only people who publicly call for death sentences for certain crimes, and then go on to commit those crimes. But if I went that far, then I might say that only people who support the death penalty shall be eligible for the death penalty. It's a slippery slope, really. So, I just have to go back to opposing the death penalty, generally.