ricecake

Oh, it's totally freedom of speech. But freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to broadcast your speech on public property without exception.

If they hung the banner on their house or private property, there would be nothing to be done to stop them.
But you can't hang a banner from the governments property without their permission, which must be given in a manner impartial to the content on the banner beyond any compelling interests like "no hanging very distracting banners where it could cause accidents".

They didn't ask, so they can have their banner removed just as though they hung it from the flagpole in front of the courthouse.

They're being prosecuted because a racial component to a crime is an aggravating factor that makes it more appealing to prosecutors.
So their claim is entirely correct: they're being prosecuted because their crime was minor but made worse by being racist. We've already decided that it's reasonable for the government to be particularly harsh on racist crimes because it singles out a type of behavior that's particularly harmful to society.

Do you think that source contradicts what I said?

Mr. Miranda asked Ms. Wasserman Schultz whether they should call CNN to complain about a segment the network aired in which Mr. Sanders said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected. “Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”

Shocking. She didn't speak kindly of a person who publicly attacked her, and opted to leave the story alone instead of doing anything.

Same information, but cast with additional context

Most of the shocking things mentioned in the emails were only mentioned, and are then dismissed.

Your mistaking opinions and preference bias, which all people have, for unfair bias. Do you actually expect that the people who run a political party don't have an opinion about politics?

The coin thing didn't happen.. At best she won six out of a dozen, which is what you would expect. The reality is more complicated.

You grossly mischaracterize the agreement.
From the article:

This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.

Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.

HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).

In other words, her campaign agreed to give the DNC money to prepare for the general election, and in exchange they got to look at those preparations.
This was definitely the Clinton campaign assuming she would be the candidate, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for financial impropriety regarding the primary.

Honestly, if your campaign can't find a lawyer or accountant who can understand campaign finance management, you probably actually shouldn't be in charge of a country. The financial arrangements weren't particularly obtuse or obfuscated for moving millions of dollars between multiple political entities in multiple states.

Does it really count as "lucid" if you enunciate your lies, fabrications, misrecollections about... everything?

Oh, definitely. Not just possible, they weren't even looking for that. They were entirely looking for what the debate did to preferences and opinions directly about the candidates.

I mostly brought it out as an example of the headline not capturing the whole message of how it impacted voters. Or didn't impact, rather.

... Picking a side is literally what an election is.

Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying "no" not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?

In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was "this is a silly story. Sanders isn't going to be president" at a time where he was already loosing.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.

She did. Eight years ago.

Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn't have much impact.

you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.

Oh please. It's even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn't know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.

George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn't want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there's a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.

He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the "right" people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.

So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn't matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn't proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.

Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?

I'm not sure you know how political affiliation or "people" work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called "connections", and it's how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.

The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It's how people work. You prefer a person you've known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don't make it unfair.

The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn't have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn't matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!

So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn't have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren't just "new people to the party didn't know tools the party made available?”

True. But they were going to have the same criticism of Biden regardless.

It's part of the reason I didn't even watch. Looking over the polling, the debate didn't really change anyone's opinions on anything to any significant degree.

See, you're talking partisan politics, I'm talking "you literally have to pick someone". We've had these candidates before. You already know which one you're going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.

Beyond that though, there's "parties" and then theirs "sides". One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn't, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.

By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you've picked a side. The side that doesn't want to do good for only the "right" people, or make sure only the "right" people get hurt.
The only question is if you'll vote for that side to win, or if you'll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.

Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?

People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn't fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.

He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.

Oh yeah, he's totally not a viable candidate, but he does have an actual political philosophy and opinions that are surprisingly agreeable. He just lacks the actual political fortitude or will to get elected.

They did a lot of the pre-selection of people beforehand. The headline most places are running with is "flash poll says trump won", but if you actually read the conclusions, it's that "flash poll says trump won, more Republicans watched the debate by about a ten percent margin, and no one changed their opinions about fitness for office or who they're voting for".

Dude, have you actually read vermin Supremes platform, or rather his actual political philosophy and beliefs?

I read through some of them once, and had the horrifying realization that the contemporary political figure that I think I agree with most closely is:

• unelectable

• best known for wearing a boot on his head

I couldn't find where a lot of his actual opinions got discussed a bit more formally, but this random video snippet from 2008 does a decent job capturing it.

If I had (got? Got. I'd love to need to make the choice) to pick between a democratic socialist or a social anarchist, I think I'd honestly lean towards the social anarchist, all things being equal.

It's a delightful PR gimmick by a most definitely not a tech company, since there's not much cutting edge technology going on in the world of "flamethrowers are perfectly legal in America and that's our business model".

In addition to strapping a flamethrower to a generic quadruped robot, they also strapped one to a drone.

Basically because it's not soft enough.

Your body "pushes" things out by squeezing in a "rolling" motion. Like running a rolling pin over a tube of toothpaste.

Picture each of those little segments contracting and relaxing in sequence to slowly move things along, until it gets dumped in the rectum, where it sits until you and it come to an understanding.
Bunch of muscles then move things around to get things lined up, since normally things rest in a way that helps keep things from just falling out. Anal sphincter also does this, but it's the difference between folding the chip bag closed, using a chip clip or both.
Once it's all lined up, it does that rolling squeeze again, takes off the chip clip and things proceed in a routine fashion.

So if instead of what it's used to, it's dealing with something like a cucumber, it can end up with the end up around that curve at the top of the rectum.
The tapered inside near the anal sphincter means that when your vegetable goes in, the muscle can squeeze against the end and make the situation more of a commitment than people had planned for.
Once there, it can run into a few more hurdles. The muscles near the top can't really do anything but squeeze the sides. If it's not squishy and there's no angle, it's not going to be able to do anything because it just doesn't have the angle. Even if there is an angle, like your cucumber didn't go all the way, it's going to be squeezing at an awkward angle to try to push something inflexible through the opening in the stronger anal sphincter.
Usually the softness lets things find a way with some mutual give and take, but even normally things can get a bit firm and get some resistance that can be uncomfortable to work through.

Turns out I think I remember more of my anatomy and physiology classes than I thought.

'Bessie' is a preposterous name for a chicken.

Particularly when they don't have to be. These relationships are rarely symmetric.

Sounds like they didn't remove the CO2, just gave him a mask that forced him to breathe nitrogen. Like a standard medical respirator, so he spent half an hour rebreathing his CO2 and whatever oxygen slipped in around the mask.

As unlikely as it is to ever come up, you shouldn't run from wolves or bears either. They both have a strong prey drive and might chase to kill even if that wasn't their objective in the confrontation.

You're confusing genetics with eugenics.

Genetics is heritable traits and no one finds that objectionable. Eugenics is asserting that certain heritable traits are superior to others, and selectively breeding people, killing or sterilizing them to control the propagation of traits.
Eugenics is Hitler and sterilizing native American women. Genetics is having the same color eyes as your father.

We don't like eugenics because it treats people like animals.
There's an argument to be made that we went a little far treating animals like animals when we aggressively bread them for appearance to the detriment of health.

And, for a small note: "race" is not a stand in for genetics. Race is a social construct.
That doesn't mean that there aren't genetic differences between people, or that what we call race isn't genetic, but rather where we draw the lines between races has little to do with significant genetic differences. Two random Americans, one black one white, with long family histories in North America are more likely to be genetically similar despite a difference in skin coloration, especially compared to an eastern European and a central African.

Visible traits are a poor indicator of broad genetic traits.

So it's less that racial classification is abhorrent, and more that it's inaccurate, antiquated, and too intermingled with complex social and economic forces to be useful for the topic you were discussing.

"are children today too happy and well fed?"

Depends on the thing.
Super high level, ADHD is an issue with the reward system of the brain failing to deliver reward when it's supposed to. Your brain is supposed to try to find a new task when it's not getting it's reward anymore; it's how that frontal cortex problem solving engine gets driven around by all the parts that handle motivation, wants and desires.
Sometimes no reward is being given, so you keep slipping off to a different task, and sometimes too much reward is being given and so you stay on a task way too long.
And, to be clear: these are not huge rewards we're talking about like a wave of pleasure or noticable feeling, just the baseline steering signals.

Sometimes the task you need to do provides no "normal" reward but neither does what you're doing right now, so your problem solver sees no reason to switch. Sometimes a nudge can help because fulfilling a request or suggestion can come with some reward, or at least you're just swapping out neutral tasks with some minor effort.

Sometimes the task is unpleasant to some minor degree, so not only is the reward not there, it's also a punishment. Or the thing you're currently doing is providing some degree of reward.
In either case, switching means actively going against everything your problem solver uses to decide what to do. Needless to say, that's really hard, and being nudged often feels more like being nagged, or like they're upset with you, because your problem solver (also known as your conscious self) knows this is all going on, but knowing how the engine is working doesn't make it work differently.
So you've been sitting there trying to push a granite block up a hill for an hour, and then someone comes up and starts pushing on your back. They haven't removed the part that made it hard, but they added something uncomfortable to your current situation.

Before I got on medication following my diagnosis, me and my partner handled it by just being really cognizant of what our mental states are, and communicating clearly. "You asked me to remind you", "I need to do it, but I'm stuck", and effectively asking for permission before annoying someone to the point where the current blocker is less desirable than doing the thing. Requires a lot of trust and good communication though.

It's difficult to describe subjective feelings, but what can sometimes look like "sitting on the couch watching short YouTube videos about sheep dogs instead of brushing your teeth and going to bed" is actually: sitting on the couch bored out of your mind and desperately wanting to go to bed, but the sheepdogs are providing short bursts of novelty and cute. Removing your lap blanket provides no joy and makes you cold. Standing up provides no joy and makes you less comfortable. Walking to the bathroom provides no joy and now you're in the dark bathroom. Brushing your teeth provides no joy, tastes bad, and is intensely boring. Walking to the bedroom provides no joy. Getting into bed and snuggling up provides joy.
Summed up: sheep dogs provide continuous minor joy, and only costs the physical misery of staying awake, the confused guilt of paralysis, and the promise of future misery. Going to bed is a promise of some joy, but it comes with a bunch of steps that are at best neutral and often entail anti-joy. It just doesn't add up. Other people get a tiny hit of joy from each substep, which is why they can say "I'm done looking at sheepdogs, I'm going to bed" and then just magically do it.

"Before you go to bed, you need to slowly press your bare foot into this fresh dog poop, toes spread of course" isn't often made better by someone saying "it's not that bad, come on, you can do it, I believe in you, then you can get some rest for once".

I think it goes to something else. The (relatively uncommon) compulsion is caused by an issue with the part of your brain that inhabits those thoughts that you don't normally even notice.
So it's like the brain occasionally hits the gas pedal when aiming for the break.

It's part of what makes it so distressing for people who have it, since it tends towards the things they don't want to say.

People want both.
I work for a company that made the audacious decision to let people work how they feel they work best.
They got the feedback that there are some things that some people miss about working together in an office.
So once a month they have catering brought in to bait people into coming in and seeing their coworkers face to face, optionally.

My loose observation is that pizza fails the 20 minute drive test, but any BBQ passes.

I live an hour away because housing prices are literally 1/3 what I would pay closer, so I only go in if everyone on my team is and the food is up to snuff.

Point is, people want BBQ and less commuting, and we should make it clear that we expect both.

What specifically stands out to you as a ridiculous bit of probaganda?

It's certainly not the most accurate or clinical, and some of the categories are a bit "eh", but nothing popped out to me that I would describe so strongly.

If nothing else, it's a lot more objective and grounded in reality than what they gave me in that dumb dare program. Might be why my reaction is just "close enough".

I'm glad everyone finds it weird and gross, but I'm also amused at how many people don't know this is a five year old joke from a mommy blogger at this point.

Never actually real, just meant to make people who were currently dealing with sticker boards and feeling weird about it chuckle.

That almost feels like a misclick. The notion that the US should take a paternal attitude towards China is almost textbook orientalism.

If they were being uncharitable in their reading of your position, the notion that the "mysterious East" would react unexpectedly to our sophisticated western diplomatic gestures due to their rigid culture would also fall under that umbrella.

There's also okular. Basically anything that the kde foundation puts out will invariably be cross platform and pretty good.

There's functionally no difference. The way that they messed this up would have still created suffering because they weren't letting carbon dioxide escape.

The suffocation feeling comes from CO2 buildup, not lack of oxygen. The same issue can happen with nitrous oxide if you don't let the CO2 escape.

The mean number of US presidential felonies is .75.
Trump is truly an extraordinary president, since he's single handedly raised that number from zero to where it is today, and he's not even done yet.
Truly providing an excellent education in why statistical means are sometimes very misleading.

I would disagree that devs need a professional linked in profile.
I've never had one, and I've never looked at one for anyone I've interviewed. I don't think I've heard of any of my coworkers doing so either.

Something to keep in mind is that as of right now, he is guilty. If sentencing decides he goes to jail (very unlikely), they do not have to let him go free while the appeal takes place.

More likely though, is that he'll be bound by the terms of probation. Which is potentially hilarious, since it means the probation officer can enter his home at will, send him to jail if he knowingly communicates with a felon, and can deny his requests to leave the jurisdiction he was convicted in essentially at will. He needs to be available to be interviewed by the probation at their discretion anywhere he is, and the probation officer can deny his living arrangements if they believe it creates a risk of a prohibited behavior.

It's unlikely, but a particularly vindictive parole officer could make a very legitimate argument that attending the convention where they vote on making Trump the Republican candidate must be denied due to the likelihood of associating with known felons or former criminal associates related to his conviction.

If would be petty, but it's not like anyone has put much care into abuse in the probation and parole system before, so...

If a wild animal attacks a human, we typically kill it, if for no other reason than to keep it from doing so again. We also need to know what caused it to do so, like if it had an infection that made it particularly aggressive or something.

We're animals too, and vastly more dangerous. It's silly to think we won't defend ourselves.

Protect as in "put up a sign", sure. But I can't justify any amount of force to protect someone's driveway.

If your driveway is damaged by using it as a driveway, then it's already too late and you need a new one. You have no control over what delivery people are driving, or any number or legitimate public service workers who might need to stop at your house.

Snape killed Ganondorf

I mean, you can't get the levels to zero. Food is grown outside where animals poop, and then the ingredients are stored in warehouses and silos that can't be made entirely impermeable.

No one sets the limit at zero because it's almost impossible to achieve. What everyone does is look at how much is safe and then set a limit well below that.

If you've eaten food from a garden you've eaten food that's about as dirty as anything else the FDA allows.

Interest rates were low, which made banks lend money very cheaply. It also led to a lot of money being put in the stock market, which made it go up.

Companies used that money to, in part, hire people. A lot of people. The stock market doing well also means businesses try to grow, because everyone is spending more money.

Interest rates are starting to come back up. This means loans are more expensive, which means there's less cash available. It also means there's less money in the stock market.

Less cash on hand and lower stock value makes businesses want to cut costs, and people are very expensive, particularly in the tech sector.

Additionally, commercial real estate is running into major problems: people don't want or need to work in offices.
This means the contracts are being allowed to expire, and less money for the large companies that own the properties.

A lot of money is invested in these companies. Anticipation of them doing badly makes companies fear an economic downturn.

So with less money available, less tolerance for risk in the stock market, and a fear of a significant economic upset, companies are looking to cut expenses, and people hired because cash was cheap and risk was okay are easy to justify cutting.

They ideally would like to let go of people they can do without, keep their stock price high, and when the market bottoms out spend the cash they can justify with their high price to buy viable companies at a discount.

So, it really depends on your personal threat model.

For background: the biometric data doesn't leave the device, it uses an on-device recognition system to either unlock the device, or to gain access to a hardware security module that uses very strong cryptography for authentication.

Most people aren't defending against an attacker who has access to them and their device at the same time, they're defending against someone who has either the device or neither.

The hardware security module effectively eliminates the remote attacker when used with either biometric or PIN.
For the stolen or lost phone attack, biometric is slightly more secure, but it's moot because of the pin existing for fallback.

The biggest security advantage the biometrics have to offer is that they're very hard to forget, and very easy to use.
Ease of use means more people are likely to adopt the security features using that hardware security module provides, and that's what's really dialing up the security.

Passwords are most people's biggest vulnerability.

Your suffocation reflex is driven by a buildup of carbon dioxide, not a lack of oxygen.

If you leave air composition the same but remove the oxygen, your body doesn't notice and you feel fine until you suddenly black out.

https://youtu.be/UN3W4d-5RPo?si=3LKw5fe1wXfRDcrB

The Air Force does training on it, since it can happen if the aircraft loses pressure and pilots need to know how to notice and handle it. As you can see in the above video, the pilot is not suffering even though the oxygen level has been cut quite drastically.