In an alternate reality, not too different from ours, this guy is gonna be the next president.

Punching left at the guy who attended the RNC?

If there’re no other alternatives, then I propose that going forward the new term for this should be “Crowd Striking”

That is fair lol.

That said if we’re talking less about how awful he is, and more about how absurd his awfulness is, then nothing screams “divorced from the reality of normal people” quite like this quote from his own daughter:

He ran down to the beach with a chainsaw, cut off the whale’s head and then bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco, New York.

Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car, and it was the rankest thing on the planet. We all had plastic bags over our heads with mouth holes cut out, and people on the highway were giving us the finger, but that was just normal day to day stuff for us.

If even a little of this were true….<insert the words I don’t have to describe my feelings here>

Maybe not Splatoon specifically, but switch-exclusive single-player games run comparably or better on switch emulators running on the deck

This seems misleading. 28% is less than Biden’s 39.6% tax proposal for 2025, but still greater than the 20% tax we have now. More importantly, this proposal would just be a request - Congress can make whatever amendments they want.

I could be wrong and would accept evidence to the contrary, but I don’t think Congress was going to pass Biden’s 40% proposal for FY25, anyway, in which case 28% would be a compromise in the right direction.

Margin of error on this poll is 4.4%. Don’t even bother clicking this. Vote.

Git itself isn't decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.

Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.

I get that this is a strong ticket on paper, but it’s really not the time for this.

Voting for Stein when somebody would’ve otherwise voted Harris basically just hands support to the voter’s least liked candidate.

It’s a well-known phenomenon, see the Spoiler Effect.

But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isn’t an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, it’s an appeal to centrism.

My point then being

Now she’s the one always punching left

Doesn’t really make sense in this context

Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.

On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.

But I’ll respond back at least once more:

Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.

But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.

What is your take on that?

If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?

Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…

I agree with the core of what you’re saying except I disagree that she “doesn’t understand” how slowly politics works. I think her decision to vote for Harris anyway speaks to that kind of understanding, else she’d endorse a third-party candidate/write-in in a poor attempt to speed-run democracy.

It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

Saying the American Revolution was about

England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.

“Don’t believe initial reporting about any dramatic event. The rush to be first often overrides the responsibility to try to be correct. As with any event like this, some of this information is likely to change as more information becomes available.”

https://youtu.be/sgpYzFTtJug?feature=shared

In any case, I heard about the attempt shortly after I started scrolling through lemmy last night, so from my pov the information had gotten to me in a timely manner.

What version control software in particular do you find better than git?

Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.

If I understand margin of error correctly, then what this means is that the “true” lead that harris had over trump at the time of this poll has a 95% chance of being somewhere between +(5+4.5) and +(5-4.5).

So according to just this poll, there’s a 95% that Harris’ lead in Minnesota is between 9.5% and 0.5%, so somewhere between “what the polling was nearly already saying” and “almost neck and neck”.

And that’s not even taking any of the other polling into consideration…

TL;DR yeah, this poll isn’t very useful.

This is a very misleading article. A lot of other comments are already touching on the nuance of the argument here, but I just want to break it down the way I understand it.

(Before that, though, I just want to point out that this is a 6-3 decision, but it’s not the usual 6-3, since Kagan and Gorsuch flipped sides. I think that’s telling enough that this isn’t simply a party-lines interpretation.)

It’s not that SCOTUS argued that “and” means “or”, it’s that when you have a statement “a person is eligible if not (a), (b), and (c)”, there is ambiguity in the order of operations between “not” and “and”. The statement could either mean

(1) E = !(A and B and C)

or

(2) E = (!A) and (!B) and (!C)

Demorgan’s law says we can rewrite (1) and (2) as

(1) !E = A and B and C

(2) !E = A or B or C

The court went with interpretation (2), not because one is more “correct” than the other. It seems like (2) was chosen because of the two “statutory difficulties” listed in the syllabus of Pulsifer v. United States.

(1) Pulsifer's reading would render Subparagraph A superfluous because a defendant who has a three-point offense under Subpara-graph B and a two-point offense under Subparagraph C will always have more than four criminal-history points under Subparagraph A. That reading leaves Subparagraph A with no work to do: removing it from the statute would make the exact same people eligible (and inel-igible) for relief. That kind of superfluity, in and of itself, refutes Pul-sifer's reading. When a statutory construction "render[s] an entire subparagraph meaningless," this Court has noted, the canon against surplusage applies with special force. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U.S. 109, 128. That is particularly true when, as here, the subparagraph is so evidently designed to serve a concrete function. Pp. 15-20.

(2) Pulsifer's reading would also create a second problem related to Paragraph (f)(1)'s gatekeeping function. The Guidelines presume that defendants with worse criminal records exhibiting recidivism, lengthy sentences, and violence deserve greater punishment. Under the Government's reading, Paragraph (f)(1) sorts defendants accordingly. When the defendant has committed multiple non-minor of-fenses, he cannot get relief (Subparagraph A). And so too when he has committed even a single serious offense punished with a lengthy prison sentence (Subparagraph B) or one involving violence (Subpara-graph C). Pulsifer's reading, by contrast, would allow safety-valve relief to defendants with more serious records while barring relief to defendants with less serious ones. A defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point violent offense would be denied relief. But a defendant with multiple three-point violent offenses could get relief simply because he happens not to have a two-point violent offense.

Contrary to Pulsifer's view, that anomalous result cannot be ignored on the ground that a sentencing judge retains discretion to impose a lengthy sentence. If Congress thought it could always rely on sentencing discretion, it would not have created a criminal-history requirement in the first instance. Instead, it specified a requirement that allows such discretion to operate only if a defendant's record does not reach a certain level of seriousness. Pulsifer's construction of Paragraph (f)(1) makes a hash of that gatekeeping function. Pp. 20-23.

In summary, this is a ruling that could have gone either way, and the side the court chose isn’t totally ridiculous.

It is the side of giving fewer people just the eligibility for relief, which is pretty shitty. But if the court was stooping to an argument as bad as the headline made it out to be, IMO we’d have MUCH bigger problems.

When the bar is at a reasonable height, sure.

But when the other guy did worse with more documents AND didn’t cooperate, and HE didn’t get charged until after he was caught obstructing the investigation, well then the bar’s in hell.

Relevant link for those interested in what OP is talking about.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-microreactor-experiments-watch-starting-2026

I’m not yet convinced this technology is the future or anything, but it does look pretty promising. We’ll know better when DOME testing begins in 2026.