I wanted to disagree with this, but I actually think you make a rather compelling argument.
I wanted to disagree with this, but I actually think you make a rather compelling argument.
Someone must always make decisions, a world where no decisions are made would devolve into a Mad Max type thing, where the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom would become very readily apparent. We used to decide these things with trial by combat, where the most skilled warrior (or who chose the most skilled as their champion) was right because God apparently said so, by making him so good at fighting. Still a person making a decision. Not far off from a world where you decide if someone was a witch by trying to build a bridge out of them.
The modern trick is dividing up the decision-making power so much that nobody can assemble it all into their personal toolkit and fully embrace corruption with no consequences.
No, there's a lot of us that don't want to surrender the incumbent advantage for the very common backlash-against-the-last-party phenomenon we've seen many times in the past decades.
We're just not as loud as everyone else, and our position makes terrible clickbait.
I did. I saw a tired old man and a used car salesman. More importantly though, is I don't think almost everyone gives two shits about debates or polls. They know these two guys, know them well. What they offer is clear.
Additionally, I don't think a President has to be spry. They just need to be good at delegation, that is by far the most important skill. If you think about monarchy, the king did not need to run everything. Simply assign the tasks to people who did know all the details. Generals run the army. Finance ministers run economy. Diplomats run diplomacy. Etc.
I know someone up there in years that enjoyed the Far Cry series. Didn't really expect that. shrug
More generally I think it'll commonly be something that relates to their interests when they were younger. Someone that retired 20 years ago from aerospace engineering might actually really enjoy Kerbal Space Program or even Outer Wilds, a former industrial foreman might like Factorio, for a retired military historian, bring on that Total War.
I can see games like Big Game Hunter and Truck Simulator being more broadly popular with certain segments. Some sports games maybe, like a tennis game or some golf thing maybe, I don't know much about those. A simpler, realism-leaning racing game maybe. Flight simulator works great here.
The main thing is I'd avoid games with lots of layers of game design and abstraction. It should do what it says on the tin, and there shouldn't be many steps or abstract mechanics between them and getting into the meat of the game and the core gameplay loop.
Minimal menus is probably a good idea. Like, a Paradox Interactive game would probably be a poor choice, just because they have so much you need to learn to become a proficient player. Fine text can be hard to read too, so menus and tooltips and complex status interfaces are usually gonna be pretty meh for most people. Can't play Starcraft if you have to squint and lean in every time you want to know how many minerals you have.
Want that learning curve to just get into the initial gameplay to be pretty gentle overall. The experience should be fairly intuitive to real life, and real life doesn't have that many menus and buttons. Usually, depending on their former career I guess.
Kudos for doing this btw.
(oh, and sorry I couldn't answer your core question)
Very well summarized, I think this hits the majority of the most relevant points.
It's also related to sex being a "special" or "sacred" act. If it was just something that could be potentially dangerous by resulting in STDs or unwanted pregnancy, like say, driving your car can be potentially dangerous by resulting in accidents and death, then no stigma would exist. But people give it this special character beyond any other human activities, and put it on a pedestal essentially.
Without that pedestal, a delivery driver delivering to someone they don't like, for the money, is just ... their job. Sex being a job is just ... a job a person can have. Why make it special?
People basically want to put the pussy on a pedestal, and you don't really need to be doing that. It doesn't actually make any sense, it's just tradition for some folks. Who then want other people to follow their tradition too.
I occasionally go through my old comments to see how things got received, see if I could improve my wording, things like that. General communications skill polishing. It's not consuming as much as critically reviewing, but whatever.
Since I'm adding engagement on lemmy, and I do put some effort in to be amusing or informative or whatever (usually anyway), yes I do feel like I am helping. If I was on reddit or something, not so much.
A hardcore second amendment voter will usually resist any and all measures that restrict firearm possession, often on the basis of slippery slope arguments. Since the basis is rooted in a classic logical fallacy, they can be very difficult to persuade.
You're right though, Biden has been fairly moderate on gun control. So was Obama though, and you remember how they reacted to him?
If you look at the Trump candidacy and things like qanon, it'd be hard to argue that the internet isn't making inroads. My generation let this go on for long enough, it's not about the lulz anymore. Lots of people are getting hurt, and it can still get worse.
Well, I am not that guy for the record. But if you read the article it said he automatically rejects any candidate that advocates for gun control. So, that means Biden is flat out for him, along with pretty much the whole dem party.
The amusing part to me personally was that such a person would normally just vote gop. But that specific guy cannot, for fairly obvious reasons.
And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?
If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we've found the problem.
"Party leaders" did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you're arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that's true.
And just pulling in revenues with clickbaity tactics.
Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.
To me it looks like N Korea wanting to acquire some direct combat experience to continue to develop their skills and capabilities.
But yes, personally I was not expecting this.
Pretty sure that if you're a spy, reporter is probably the worst possible cover, since a reporter is already someone that very clearly snoops, and snooping people get watched closely.
I think a much better spy would be a native born Russian, working in a lower-level job where people don't pay a whole lot of attention to them.
After WW2 everyone felt really bad. And it was a west-leaning country in a region full of oil and big trade routes.
Most of the calculus has slowly changed over the years. The Congressionally-passed treaties all still remain though.
... using the internet for fake bullshit? Impossible.
While I agree with the broad strokes of what you're saying, we do have enough intelligence penetration into the Russian military to predict an invasion even their own soldiers did not know about. We could potentially find out where their listening stations are. One would have to be very nearby.
Also, we have multiple subs. Revealing one temporarily does not compromise our deterrence. Nor is this move without any value, I think it's important that we occasionally sabre-rattle back at them. It seems to be a language they understand.
All that said, I doubt nuclear WW3 is around the corner with MAD still being the case. I doubt non-nuclear WW3 is around the corner unless China joins Russia in a military alliance. What I do think is within the next few years is chipping away at the Russian economy and morale of the populace until they sue for peace in Ukraine.
It does not provide the details, but I highly doubt the polling was done anonymously online. You're right, that would be completely useless.
However, polling done offline also needs to be anonymized, even though it is offline and the pollster knows the identities of the participants, simply to protect them from repercussions.
Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.
Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.
edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.
That's funny, I remember Iowa and NH going first like they do every year.
I'm leery of polls these days. One thing I like about the Bulwark is they do a lot of focus groups, where you can hear from voters at a more detailed level, in their own words.
It's still not a great method, since its such a small sample size. But I think it's better than polls of poll-taking Americans.
I agree, that does sound plausible, if they had a listening station nearby.
Bernie decides if Bernie runs. He has already said he won't though, he'd have to change his mind. He's also getting up there in years unfortunately.
Okay then, next was SC and Nevada. How far do we have to go before we see these changes? And who was the contender that was hurt by the changes?
This is true, it is very possible.
One thing not enough people are discussing is the incumbent advantage though. We'd lose that edge, and be subject to the standard backlash-against-the-last-party phenomenon.
We'd need a candidate strong enough to compensate for that lost advantage. And there's the big problem, dems have had very few strong leaders since Obama retired. Bernie was our strongest, and he's not even officially a dem.
I'd say both the parties are pretty capitalist. The repubs were interested in finding their challenger, they didn't know who it would be yet. The dems, all the way down to the majority of voters, were interested in supporting their incumbent, not interested in a chaotic primary fight.
I think that's still largely the case.
So, that's pretty much the same order as always, not seeing how that helps anyone.
And you can look up who runs if you want. You do not need to see debates to figure it out, someone announces after they file their paperwork, then its up to them to convince people to support them. You're pretending like the DNC needs to do all this work to serve us up a platter of great options, but ignoring that it's the candidates that determine how they get received. Don't forget, most Americans still hate the idea of communism, too, even if they don't actually know what it is.
This conspiracy theory nonsense is getting tiresome. The real world isn't that simple.
Israel's survival is not threatened by anything short of large-scale pre-emptive Iranian nuclear barrage, or civil war.
Claiming your actions are necessary for survival is a very old trick, commonly used by authoritarian regimes as a convenient excuse.
Very weak article, giving him credit as a free speech absolutist. Is he really, or does he ban people that attack him? Alludes to us having self-driving due to his innovations. Really? Other automakers seem neck and neck with him, with Mercedes having passed a major milestone before him, quite recently.
Does he really have hyperloops to dream up and Mars colonies to plan, or is that just marketing drivel to appeal to certain types?
This is almost fanboying in disguise. If you simply read it through the lens of being pro-racism, it's suddenly a praise piece.
edit: Oh, and it doesn't even try to answer the question it asks in its own headline.
"They" is the traditional English-language pronoun when an unknown person could be of either gender. "Mommy, my teacher said a funny thing at school today!" "Oh? What did they say?"
Teacher is singular, but assigning a gender would feel awkward if one doesn't know, so "they" is used instead.
Sure did take him a long time to get upset about surveillance.
And how many brave Ukrainians are dead now, and died with no shells for their cannons, no missiles in the batteries we gave them, waiting for us to hold a damn vote?
I hope Johnson thinks about that when he kneels down to pray at night. I hope it haunts him for the rest of his life.
Never is a strong word.
Until 1995, when Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated by a right winger, they were moving towards a two state solution, to the point of the IDF forcibly removing their own Jewish settlements from the lands of the prospective Palestinian state.
After the assassination, Netanyahu became the next PM, and has served in the position for most of the time since, asides most of a decade in the 2000s where other Likud politicians held it. He reversed the policy of settler removal.
Try not to conflate the entire country with the crazy right winger leadership they have currently. The same leadership of strongmen that catastrophically failed to keep them safe back in October, which is the one single thing such a man says he is supposed to be good at.
All that said, I also support Palestinian entry as a UN member state, and am tired of the US unfairly favoring its treaty ally in this case.
Yeah, that kinda reeked of misinformation to me. The US is largely energy independent these days, we're a net exporter, not an importer.
Being so afraid of your government that you do not speak out, assemble, engage with a free press, practice your religion, etc etc etc is about as un-American as something can get.
I was wondering who would have enough clout to quash an investigation like that, til I read glyphosate was suspected. Monsanto is not some minor corporation.
And it's not the healthiest stuff:
The US Constitution gives the Executive official responsibility for the enforcement of all federal law.