xxd

I was even more confused with the apostrophe, thinking it said “OTHER DDE’S”. I was starting to doubt my english.

There is no room for a third Party in a FPTP voting system as per Duverger’s Law. I think its likely the party would never take off, no matter how sensible it’s positions are. And even in the best case of it slowly growing while eating away at the democrats to eventually have a majority: during the time it takes to get there, elections would just be an easy republican win every time, as the ‘left half’ is split between bernie and status quo. I don’t think that’s worth it.

Replace the last speech bubble with this meme and it works again.

It’s wild to me that you’re equating having children with doing effort in your life. These people were supporting you in your choices too! They were paying taxes, maybe they were open to babysitting because they had no children of their own, maybe they financially helped parents within their family that were struggling. You’re kind of suggesting a two-class society, where childless people are off to fend for themselves with minimal support, regardless of what good they might have done in their lives. It’s like sending firefighters only to houses of other (ex-)firefighters, and letting all other houses burn because they ‘put in no effort’ themselves.

High adoption demand is good for the kids, but not for people relying on kids for their survival at an older age!

Exemptions will always be made for the unable.

Ruminate on that for a second. Think about how a government would determine if you’re unable. If you’re gay, does the government need to see you having sex with a man to be sure? What if a person has e.g. endometriosis and getting pregnant is far more unlikely but not impossible. Were they unable? Or just not trying enough? And what if a person wasn’t even diagnosed but just thought they were unlucky? We’d need a ridiculously thorough health check for every pensioner just to determine one factor in their eligibility.

Barely any pension, but that’s fine because they have kids to take care of them. This sounds nice, except for when you think of it for more than a few seconds. How would a homosexual couple survive while they’re old? They can’t have kids. They can adopt, but that does nothing to enlarge the population. What about people that can’t conceive for medical reasons? Should they have to suffer with “barely any pension” just because they got unlucky? This might be fine for most, but policies like that come at the expense of minority groups, which are already often at a disadvantage. And if you suggest adoption… If having kids is the only way to have a decent life after retiring, adopting would be an easy choice, because it saves you the pregnancy hassle as well as maybe some stressful first years of childcare. Surely the demand for adoptions would skyrocket, making it close to impossible for every person in a group that can’t have children to actually get them. Also, since kids are so valuable, supply for adoptions would fall, because who in their right mind would give up their pension that easily!

And let’s say a couple can and does have children because of the policy. In your mind they might have been ‘forced to make a better decision’, but ultimately ended up with the right choice, right? Have you considered that having kids might not be a healthy choice for a couple? Maybe the parents are just not cut out for the stress and suffer greatly while their kids grow up. Maybe the kids suffer as well, because a parent that is forced to have kids would hardly be a loving and enthusiastic parent, would they? You’d have to admit that forcing people into a choice is not exactly a good recipe for ensuring that they are happy, right?

Moving the financial burden of taking care of the elderly to an individual level works fine for some people, like your granddad enjoying your financial support, but greatly hurts people in different circumstances that they have no fault to be in. We should support everyone, not just a few lucky ones.

If anything it would be more a ‘tu quoque’ fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.

It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn’t do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.

I don’t think there are benchmarks specifically for hosting minecraft, but I guess general purpose benchmarks can give you a pretty good estimate. You could spin up a server on your homelab and just stress-test it a bit to see if it is noticeably worse than the other instance. You’ll have to weigh the saved costs against the (likely) worse performance. on a side note: there are great options to make minecraft playable on servers with less CPU power, like using i.e. a paper server, performance mods, or lowering the renderdistance and ‘faking’ more renderdistance with client-side mods like bobby or distant horizons.

That ‘S’ looks wonky somehow. Otherwise good meme!

It is absolutely beyond me how this is even a remotely close race. What the fuck.

Wow, good tip, I didn’t know of that. Sadly, where I live this is still ‘in preparation’. But I’ll keep looking in case this happens before my cities API! Thank you!

Great work on this project!

I’m envious that you have available data on your public transport! Where I live they’re still working on an API that has been advertised as “available soon” for multiple years :(

I have a very similar project with a pi zero and waveshare e-paper display! I’m showing the weather, a countdown to events I’m looking forward to and a virtual pet that changes pose every so often. Here is an older picture of it:

I generally agree with what you wrote, but just saying “I ain’t reading all that, free Palestine” is a bad way to phrase it. Only a few days ago, someone posted this which boils down to the same phrasing, but arrives at the conclusion “trump 2024!”. Saying something like “this is obviously a manipulative and false narrative” would be way better imho.