Did they do their darnedest to pick only people who are true believers? No doubt. Is that a property that’s perfectly ascertainable and immutable? Absolutely not.
The number of people increases the difficulty of hiding a conspiracy, but so does the time scale. I suspect we’ll know a lot more than we do now in 20 years about this, for whatever that’s worth.
Conservatives have been fighting to push the Overton window to the right for a long time.
Agreeing with this, expanding a RAID array is not necessarily impossible, with something like RAID 5, and the right RAID setup, you could theoretically add an identical disk without wiping it all in the rebuild. RAID 1, you’ll 100% need to copy the data somewhere that isn’t the 2/4 disks in the meantime. In an environment where storage is expensive, RAID 1 is not suitable imo.
ZFS makes it so easy though. Throw a mismatched disk in? No big deal, it’s in your pool now. Want double parity for extra peace of mind? You can do that. It self-heals so you don’t need fsck, its maximum limits are too big to realistically matter on human scales, and the documentation on it is pretty good.
“trying to construct a rhetorical reality” definitely qualifies as lying.
Or he made a dumb assumption that we now know to be wrong, and can’t admit he was wrong? Or doesn’t care about the actual reality of the situation, and prefers the rhetorical reality he was trying to construct
What’s the difference with their open-source control server, from headscale? That it’s officially published by the company?
They could probably pass a law that companies within California pay taxes to the fed through an escrow account held by the state, pass the data through so if nothing crazy happens, it doesn’t really affect anybody, and get enough companies to comply that Trump would back down.
The courts would eventually decide whether or not it was legal, but by then Trump will have moved off to another target to performatively attack while pretending to help people who aren’t multi-millionaires while siphoning their money instead.
I suspect there’s a tendency of experts in something to think of people who do it narrowly as people doing at least as much as they are.
The people who have a bunch of docker services, or complex multi-machine infrastructure are self-hosted software users, and probably in that 1-2% range. People who heard piholes are useful, so they bought a pi 3 and set it up are self-hosted software users. Somebody using an old desktop they got on Facebook marketplace for running Plex media are self-hosted software users… and so on. So are the people in their houses, some of their friends and family.
Using that inclusive definition, being closer to 10% than 1% makes sense to me.
If you lie so much you’ll have trouble keeping your story straight, and eventually make a mistake and drop a few truths in there somewhere
Impeachment is easy, relatively speaking. A simple majority of the House can impeach Trump as they did twice in his last term. I believe the number is 7, of 220 Republicans in the house, would need to vote to impeach.
Getting a trial in the Senate to convict and remove, which requires a two thirds vote, would need about 20 Republicans, of 53 to vote to convict. I can’t imagine what would need to happen for that to occur. And even if it does, JD Vance is sworn in by Roberts as POTUS? I guess that means we’re in a world where Republicans think that’s better in some significant group.
A crazy, washed-up former reality TV host running for a new term as president while in exile on the moon sounds like the plot of a fun sci-fi political thriller, but not a reality I want to live in.
Yeah absolutely, not providing a good reason is really easy to do when there isn’t one
It’s good to understand why things have been done that way. Sometimes there’s wisdom in the way things have been done, and lessons learned by people who paid real costs to learn them. Sometimes the reasoning is so bad that doing things differently for its own sake is a reasonable decision. You don’t know unless you dig deeper, and not digging deeper on things that matter seems pretty dumb
If she was unwilling to break from him because of his wishes, even if she was theoretically able, that speaks volumes about her as a leader.
I think both can be true. That she cleaned up the situation is a testament to her skill as a candidate, and the fact this situation happened is in no small part an indictment of the Democratic party, in which she’s among its most senior leaders
Opposition to genocide isn’t an option on the ballot, you can’t vote for it, especially not for president. And not voting sends a very clear message whether you intend it or not: “I don’t care”.
Do you value minimizing harm? If you care most about genocide, Harris seems to be the least-worst option. But if you care more about ideological purity than harm reduction, you can vote for a non-serious candidate like Stein, or none at all. Nobody will ever solve this kind of problem at the ballot box, that isn’t how democracies work, but if letting things happen instead of exerting what little power you have eases your conscience, that’s your right. Doing so does mean a greater risk of a Trump presidency, especially if you live in a swing state.
I would rather minimize harm, so I’m voting for Harris, and encourage others to do the same.
It’s a state elections law, Supreme Court of Georgia is the ultimate authority on what it says. States have a lot of leeway to determine their own election laws, so it’s hard to mount a federal law challenge to them in the first place. The RNC voter suppression consent decree was a rare exception.
IANAL, but it’s hard to imagine an opposition to this where federal courts even have jurisdiction, much less a path to SCOTUS.
Only one of these men taught high school. Coincidence, I think not
I think we agree that most self-identified conservatives aren’t actually very invested in the status quo or tradition, and are actually regressive reactionaries, but I think it’s a clearer point to say that most self-identified conservatives aren’t in fact conservative, than that conservatism isn’t actually what people (claim they) mean when they say conservative. At that point, conservatism loses its meaning.
Yes, but if Rudy Giuliani’s disbarment is evidence of anything, brazenly defrauding the legal system for political purposes can have that effect. Much like Comey’s claim being one that rarely succeeds, I think we’re in the realm of possibility where rare things may well happen