the Earth

FTFY

This defeatist, placatory attitude will ensure that we never make any progress.

No one has ever been VP for FOUR TERMS, but that's the hypothetical bar you set for her, because you assume that's what it would take? Leaving aside that it's an impossible ask anyways, being VP for 4 terms isn't going to satisfy the "old fat white guys" anyways.

Are misogynists gonna demand more of her? Yeah, of course. But don't go setting the bar higher on their behalf, before they even say anything!

As a huge Sanders fan, he's too old as well now. AOC for sure, but sadly in this shithole country that's a pipe dream.

Uh, as someone who does malware analysis, sandbox detection is not easy, and is certainly not something that a non-malware-developer/analyst knows how to do. This isn't 2005 where sandboxes are listing their names in the registry/ system config files.

There is leaked Windows source code online... Is that also freeware for me to train an OS-building model on?

we have determined that the string itself is not a machinegun, whether or not there are loops tied on the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm as you proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle, the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machinegun.

So no, gun owners with shoes are not felons, unless they combine those 2 things to make a machinegun. Obviously.

They didn't make owning shoes a felony. Rich of you too accuse ME of arguing in bad faith in the same breath you say that.

If you use a string to make a reciprocating charging handle pull the trigger as it returns to battery after firing, why is that less "legitimate" in converting the gun into automatic firing than using an auto-sear? In both cases, the gun fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger by a person.

That's not how structured debates (Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, etc) work. Judges don't tell a team their facts are wrong, the other team does. Judges decide which of the teams had better argumentation. If you spout lies and I don't call you on it, as the opposing team, I will probably lose.

But let's say we accept that this is barely a structured debate, and the structure that was there sucked anyways, so hey- maybe it's was really a speech event (like Big Question, Extemporaneous, Humorous Interpretation, etc). That makes it even clearer why people are reacting like this, because those are not about facts at all, they're all about performance (as in 'acting').

My own view is that presidential debates are more akin to throwing the candidates in a gladiatorial arena and seeing whoever comes out least bloody. And that was always going to be Trump. Biden and his team are to blame for this, because it never should have taken place.

I'm sure the Romans were used to seeing performance like this from their leaders towards the end, too.

On a more serious note, thank you for pointing out that the debate was supposed to be between Biden and Trump, not CNN and Trump.

Regulations are not laws. They are the specific implementation mechanisms of laws.

For example, Congress passes a law like the Clean Water Act. But that law doesn't (and cannot feasibily) lay out every single individual rule necessary to ensure the clean water that it seeks to protect and provide.

For example, it contains a section that requires Water Quality Standards to be set by each state, for themselves. However, if a state does not create them, the act authorizes the EPA to create a standard for them.

That's not the EPA "creating laws", it's the EPA implementing the congressionally-passed CWA.

The march into corporatocracy continues.

Congress is the one who passed the GCA, FOPA, and NFA. If you don't like the definition of a machine gun being a firearm that fires more than once with a single actuation of the trigger (and the parts that allow them to), blame them, not the ATF.

Hell yeah! Nothing good comes from their new model, nor the advertiser-friendly focus of SD3. They were good for pushing the open-source ecosystem forward, but clearly their Capitalist masters have come calling, and they're enshittifying.

This is literally 2016 repeating itself.

I really hate being right about the worst fucking stuff.

Biden should never have been put up again, and his performance is gonna enthuse absolutely zero non-political-junkie normies to vote for him.

With states being as voter-suppressed/gerrymandered (or however you prefer to describe the electoral college bullshit) as they are, Dems cannot afford to be slightly ahead. Hillary was slightly ahead. You have to be WAY ahead, and Biden's not.

Some are bought. Some are bigots. Some are both.

I think if you're in a True Blue state, you'll be safe. It's the folks in Blue enclaves in Red states, like Austin, El Paso, Atlanta, that I'm really worried for.

With the very notable (and relevant) exception of... 2016.

the "sweetie" really cements it, too. That's not really a flirtatious word so much as a motherly one.

His model was previously based entirely on predicting the popular vote. Now he's switched it to just predict the winner based on EC delegates. I think we'll all be thrilled if Trump loses in November (or ideally, just plain dies), but a statistical model that doesn't factor in things like Republicans trying to pull fake or rogue elector hijinks doesn't fill me with confidence. And who knows what SCOTUS will do if it's thrown to them (Lichtman also predicted Al Gore's 'win').

Also, looking at the list, I'm pretty sure more than 6 are false:

1. True
2. If you inspire 650,000 to conduct write-in votes against you, is that a challenge? In any case, not counting this as False.
3. True
4. Mostly true (and RFK really pulls from Reps anyways, polls show)
5. Debatable, so I won't count
6. Debatable, so I won't count
7. Debatable. He did push a lot of changes, but the number of rightward-changes that happened under his watch (like Roe being overturned, MQD being bolstered, etc) have overshadowed basically everything else)
8. False. This entire year has been non-stop protests, and not just over Gaza (1)
9. False. Whether it was a bullshit thing to prosecute or not (it was), Hunter's conviction is a major talking point on the Right to attack Biden (and specifically, to push independents towards viewing Biden and Trump as equally criminal). (2)
10. False. Between the Afghanistan withdrawl and Gaza, he's got military and foreign policy failures in both flanks' eyes. (3)
11. False. I think that if Republicans had not been paid by the Kremlin to sandbag aid to Ukraine, he might have had one, but as of now Ukraine is not a success, and I can't think of any others that are known to voters. (4)
12. False. He was never considered charismatic like Obama, or a "National Hero". (5)
13. False. Trump's charisma among his base is a trademark of his populist campaign. It's why Trump can dominate the Right and DeSantis falls flat. (6)

For Biden now. I've updated my comment above with the list and my assessments.

I do think Lichtman’s right about debates not changing outcomes, tho

What confuses me is how debates don't play into whether a candidate is considered charismatic (questions 12/13).

I think what he means by “charismatic” is someone like Reagan who appeals to the other side of the aisle (Reagan Democrats in this case); Trump is only charismatic to his own followers.

I don't think working "across the aisle" is really what this is about; I think this is purely about voters' perceptions of them as people. But in either case, Biden sure isn't winning anyone over with his personality who wasn't already firmly center-right Neoliberal.

I consider the Afghanistan withdrawal to be, overall, a highly positive thing; yes, it was handled badly, but it’s the easiest thing in the world to keep a forever war going, and at least there Biden put a stop to it, so I give him high marks for that at least.

Gaza and Afghanistan are polar opposite reactions, depending on what flank of the Democratic party you're on:

• Gaza is an unmitigated disaster to the anti-war/anti-genocide/anti-SetCol Left flank, and a moderate success to the pro-Israel/ pro-war Neoliberal Right flank.
• Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster to the pro-war Neoliberal Right flank, and a moderate success to the anti-war Left flank.

Not trying to blindly defend Lichtman or anything, just trying to cling to whatever shred of hope remains.

Understood. I guess for me my anger is more important right now, because this was so avoidable, and Trump feels like he's close to coming back because of the DNC's endless hubris (again). And I've already seen people trying to somehow blame the anti-genocide/ pro-Palestinian protesters for this over on Reddit, since they reflexively scapegoat any and all centrist Dem failures, and they don't have a Bernie or Nader to scapegoat this time.

I would have argued it could also be France, but no one in France would let you go ahead of them in line. :P

Republican Adam Kinzinger Endorses Biden For President

Wow, that's surprising!

former congressman

Ah, that explains it.

There's not one. Sexting is very broad, it does not have to be pictures or direct references to boning. Any sexually-oriented text communication can be considered sexting.

former congressman

Wow, he's not that old!

he was vocally anti-Trump when he was still holding office

Ah, that explains it.

;P

Whales

If my brother were still there, I'd say, "yes, please".

Cleantech is a very dynamic sector, even if its triumphs are largely unheralded. There's a quiet revolution underway in generation, storage and transmission of renewable power, and a complimentary revolution in power-consumption in vehicles and homes...

But cleantech is too important to leave to the incumbents, who are addicted to enshittification and planned obsolescence. These giant, financialized firms lack the discipline and culture to make products that have the features – and cost savings – to make them appealing to the very wide range of buyers who must transition as soon as possible, for the sake of the very planet.

The author focuses on the danger of startups dying out and therefore bricking your devices, but another major problem with startups is that they are VC-backed, and those VC investors are expecting the exact same unsustainable growth that the incumbent "market leaders" are chasing in their enshittification journeys. When the startups don't die, they will also 'have' to enshittify, to satisfy investors.

It's not enough for our policymakers to focus on financing and infrastructure barriers to cleantech adoption. We also need a policy-level response to enshittification.

Sadly, this is the impossible part. Policymakers (at least in the US) will never prioritize consumers over companies.

Honestly, the best we can ever hope for is a law mandating that it's no longer illegal to modify your tech if the company who operates it dies, or shuts down the backend server infra, but this will be opposed by basically every company out there (including if not especially video game companies, who won't want to potentially have to allow people to develop and operate private servers for defunct MMOs).

Locker room humor generally refers to talk between guys, which could have sexual undertones, but isn't normally something I'd think of as "sexually-oriented".

And flirting can range all the way from smiling long at someone at a cafe or calling them 'cutie' in conversation, to me spanking my s.o. as they walk by in a sexy outfit and telling them they're gonna get punished if they keep distracting me from work- so there's a huge range in there, some of which I'd definitely consider sexting, if texted to someone.

Frankly, I have zero sympathy for him, because it's very easy not to interact over direct message with fans at all, much less underage ones.

I've worked customer-interfacing jobs that required a high level of direct, personal relationship-building before (sometimes even *gasp* with people I found attractive!), and I never once felt compelled to take those communications into a private space, and there was never even a potential for those people to have been kids.

You don't "stumble into" private messages with a minor that "get out of hand".

Capitalist class when they're ending the world: "All right, you've got this!"

Likewise, a trans person you meet on the street isn’t benefiting from the might of the Roman church. So you’re not supporting hierarchy by using a trans person’s preferred pronouns. By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

So, I want to start by pointing out that this article is directly making a link between capitalization of pronouns, and the specific practice of capitalization as a Christian show of religious reverence.

Worse, if you refused to use a trans man’s preferred pronouns because of this, you’d be guilty of pretty blatant transphobia. I believe refusing to use capitalised pronouns for a trans person who requests them is exactly the same bigotry.

Is the assertion here specifically that capitalization is tied to gender expression, or simply that it is another aspect of a personal identity that should be respected? Obviously neopronouns can be non gender-related, but the article isn't really making clear if that is the case here or not. If anything, it is quite muddled on this point.

By affirming trans men, generally you are dismantling patriarchy, and by affirming trans capitalised pronoun users, generally you are dismantling monotheistic oppression.

Wooph... The first part of that is by no means a safe assumption. While I would certainly hope that trans men would not seek to enforce a male-dominant gender power dynamic, it is by no means beyond their ability to do so as an intrinsic matter. Now, whether they can benefit from that dynamic in a given time and place is a different discussion, but even in places that do not afford them the systemic backing of the patriarchal system, they can still support and reify it themselves. Any person who attempts to enforce a male-dominant systemic power dynamic can be supporting patriarchy.

The end of that sentence seems to confirm that this is about a show of religious reverence? Or is the assertion that by capitalizing the pronouns of not-the-christian-diety one is inherently attacking Christianity?

I think that if these are simply the neo pronouns that make someone comfortable, it is for the most part fine to request this, but the article is directly drawing the link between capitalized pronouns and religious reverence, and that is not something anyone can demand someone else extend, and not one that is inherently inappropriate not to.

There are plenty of arguments over the limits of neopronoun usage within the neopronoun-using community, but generally neopronouns like "master", that confer or denote a power dynamic, are considered inappropriate.

This feels like this is skirting that line to me.

There is something very uncomfortable to me about demanding the use of a deferential title, while also insisting that not to do so is a moral wrong, while also claiming not to support hierarchy of peoples... which the creation of distinct and deferential titles would seem to contradict.

Yeah, this isn't going to get any easier. Right now KSA is mostly blaming "unauthorized" pilgrims, saying that they did not have any air conditioned hotel rooms to escape the heat in, but I think given the very wide range of reported countries affected, they are just minimizing anger.

The Middle East is going to get more and more dangerously hot, and I'm worried this is going to start being more normal during Hajj.

First off, thank You for responding to my questions.

From the exclusionary christian’s point of view, no matter the identity of the CPU in question, we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that. And we should also respect whatever the CPU identifies as.

I have a few different converging thoughts, and I'll try to lay them out separately to make sure my question's premise is clear:

• You acknowledge the power dynamic which people perceive around capitalization of pronouns
• Pronoun capitalization is also used for royalty- not just divinity (e.g. 'Her Majesty'), so this is not a power dynamic specific to religious people
• You have used un-capitalized pronouns for other people, so at least perceptually, You're not treating all people as being of this same 'elevated' position
• Your neopronouns are not optional; You have insisted that people use them, which is not a universal standpoint on neopronouns; many neopronoun users are fine with people switching between their pronoun sets, or have a 'fallback'/ auxiliary set
• Words have meaning, and You cannot pretend or decide that other people have to not care about them. That would even be directly hypocritical to insisting others accept the pronouns of Your choice.
• Just to reiterate one last time, there is unquestionably a power dynamic at play, because upending the exclusivity of that deference to figures of authority is one of Your stated reasons (or at least benefits) for using them:

we are capitalising the pronouns of a mortal and therefore challenging Deus’ supremacy by dismantling its symbols. Good. We should do that.

You are forcing them to extend You that same deference, or claiming that Status for Yourself, however You prefer to view it.

But I am struggling to see how Your insistence on this particular set of pronouns does not engender a requirement of people to extend You deference You are (at least by default, demonstrably), not extending to them? (and I am not referring to the exclusionary Religious here, but fellow Beehaw users)

There is a strong debate over using neopronouns like "master/masterself", "daddy/daddyself", etc (certainly without auxiliaries), that may create uncomfortable power dynamics for the persons needing to use them. I think this is striking some of us as similar to that, which is I think why You are seeing this much pushback.

China is not Socialist, it's State Capitalist.

Firing older employees in order to pay less to newer employees to pad the bottom line is Capitalism 101, unless someone thinks all the big US companies (Microsoft, Cisco, Meta, Tesla, etc) that have been doing this same thing this past year are all Socialist.

Yeah, I can imagine the frustration of seeing people who don't know anything about what happened during development blame you as a dev for something that may have been design decisions or budgetary or time constraints that you had no say in or control over.

"So sure, you can dislike parts of a game," he concludes. "You can hate on a game entirely. But don't fool yourself into thinking you know why it is the way it is (unless it's somehow documented and verified), or how it got to be that way (good or bad)."

"Chances are, unless you've made a game yourself, you don't know who made certain decisions; who did specific work; how many people were actually available to do that work; any time challenges faced; or how often you had to overcome technology itself (this one is HUGE)."

This is a totally fair take. He explicitly says it's fine to not like the game, but just don't try to pretend you know what happened on the back end to make it the way it was, because you're probably gonna misplace blame.

Hi there! Information security guy here. This is essentially a super quick Incident Response run-through of the basic tools I use for malicious process discovery on Windows hosts. I'm assuming this is your own personal machine, or you have permission to do this.

1. Grab the Sysinternals suite's installer here and install:

• TCPView
• Process Explorer
• Process Monitor
• Autoruns

They are all included in the rollup installer, or you can grab them individually at those links. Don't install everything, or at least don't leave it all installed when you're done. It includes a lot of tools for debugging, which you don't want to leave lying around on your system.

2. Fire up Autoruns, and check under Logon and Scheduled Tasks tabs for any unusual entries. If you don't know what something is, and the Publisher is listed as Microsoft, don't mess with it. Any non-MS stuff in those 2 areas should be safe to disable without hurting your system.

3. Process Explorer gives you a live view of the processes running on your system, basically a more advanced version of Task Manager. You can scroll through it for unusual processes, and you can even check stuff like rundll.exe processes to see the arguments used to launch it, which is SUPER useful.

4. Process Monitor is essentially a history/ log view of all processes on your system, starting from when the program is run. Think wireshark, but for processes. You can filter out known-good processes. You can search for strings. If the process is launching, executing, and terminating too quickly to catch in Task Manager or Process Explorer, it will still show up in Process Monitor.

5. TCPView is sort of like netstat, but with lots more info. You can use that to watch for unknown network connections, in case the thing you're seeing is performing some kind of network beaconing.

6. Lastly, I would personally check for 3rd party driver software like printer software, Razer or other HID controllers, sound card software, etc. I've seen third party hardware controller software do weird stuff like this, because most of it is so badly written. I'd almost be more surprised if it turns out to be malware, than if it turns out some HP Printer software is doing an ink check every 10 minutes or something.

Good. Let all the conservative boomers who can't figure out VPNs get pissed at their legislators for trying to push this b.s.

If they get this to be normalized, next up will be "well there are other sites we can't control, so now you need to put in your ID card into a reader anytime you're online!"

It's terrible that Israeli civilians were murdered.

It's wonderful that the world is stating such, and showing its support to prevent further murder of innocents.

It's terrible that Palestinian civilians were murdered.

It's terrible that the world is ignoring this, and turning a blind eye to further murder of innocents.

Navok noted that if a game costs $100 million to make over five years, it has to beat what the company could have returned investing a similar amount in the stock market over the same period. “For the 5 years prior to Feb 2024, the stock market averaged a rate of return of 14.5%. Investing that $100m in the stock market would net you a return of $201m, so this is our ROI baseline,” he explained.

This is why capitalism ruins everything. So it's not even about making art that is profitable, it's about beating out other investment opportunities that someone could have chosen, even if it meant the art didn't get made.

That is so ass-backwards.

Investment should be about wanting to grow a company whose products you believe in, both to see returns when those products perform well, but also to enjoy the future products.

Someone whose attitude is "I don't care about your products at all, I just care about cash ROI" will turn around and short your stock and disparage you, if they think it'll net them more money. In other words, they won't actually look out for the best interests of the company, and will always be looking out for opportunities to plunder the business for more profit.

And this is supposed to create a healthy market for goods? Please.

"The free market makes goods compete to see what customers prefer." Apparently not.

Apparently it creates a situation where the products can be profitable and amazing and well-loved, but a bunch of wealthy assholes who don't care about the products at all can decide the company isn't up to their standards, and punish or kill it.

There was another post here on Beehaw about housing costs, where someone noted that "voting with your wallet" doesn't work because wealthy people can "out-vote" you, on a level that even collectively you can't compete with, and this really illustrates their point well.

Late edit:

I think it bears saying that under this model of ROI calculation, depending on how well other industries are doing, it is entirely possible that no video game could feasibly outperform the market for a given timeframe... so should the whole games industry just fucking shut down in that case?