ZephrC

My approval is irrelevant. People do it, and people pay for it, so it deserves all the same respect and rights as any other work. No one’s value comes from my opinion of what they do to pay the bills, and it is not my place to tell people what sex “should” be.

True, but I do unironically know libertarians like this. Minus the Texas patch. They’re not so much into cheerleading for governments.

I mean, it’s not a group famous for their high rate of desktop computer use, but the ones that do actually make that a significant part of their life tend to be pretty likely to use Linux in my experience.

All the security updates are in the microcode loaded by the bootloader even before the kernel is loaded, so unless there’s some new feature, bugfix, or hardware support you specifically know you need it’s not important to update your BIOS anyway. Which is good, because as far as I can tell you’re just screwed by a bad hardware vendor.

I suspect that with what Republicans and the Supreme Court have been doing lately independent women will show up for her in a way they didn’t for Hillary, so at least she has that going for her, but mostly I’m just hoping she doesn’t get any real challengers within the Democratic party. That could go very, very badly, and she is not guaranteed the nomination if it happens. So far so good, but there’s still plenty of time for things to go wrong.

Congratulations, you aren’t skeptical of Kamala Harris, and therefore aren’t the person I was talking about. Good for you, but you didn’t prove anything wrong.

I mean, people are complicated and different from each other. I’m sure there are lots of independents and leftists that’s all true of, and I’m sure if you looked around you could even find a few members of the Democratic Party that fit that and also are skeptical of Kamala Harris.

I think most people who are within the mainstream of the Democratic Party and also worried about Kamala Harris as the presidential candidate are likely mostly people who have let demographic polling rot their brains though. That is what I was attempting to say with my original post.

Oh. Oh, that makes sense than. Yeah, we’ve all made that mistake. No big deal then.

It’s not my post. I didn’t make it. If you don’t like the way it’s phrased why are arguing with me about something completely different?

I didn’t ask any questions, and I didn’t say or intend to imply that all Democrats are conflicted. They’re clearly not. There have been a huge number of Democrats coming out strongly in favor of her. Why are you making up lies to defend your weird statement?

Are you even an actual Democrat who is conflicted about Kamala Harris as the nominee? Because those are the people I’m talking about.

For people on Lemmy, sure, but for mainstream Democrats? Nah. Don’t buy it.

To be fair, name recognition is hugely important in politics, and in 2020 nobody outside of California had heard of her.

Mostly they’re afraid that swing voters won’t vote for a black woman, but are afraid of saying that out loud.

What, do you think someone’s 18th birthday suddenly magically transforms them from a child to an adult overnight? The line has to be somewhere, and I’m perfectly happy with it being 18, but other countries having a slightly different line doesn’t make them all rapists.

Nobody is even accusing him of rape. Why treat him like a rapist when nobody has suggested the possibility that he had done anything wrong besides stick his foot in his mouth? It seems obvious to me that the point he was poorly attempting to make was that he’s uncomfortable with the inconsistencies around age of consent in different countries, not that there should be no such thing. 17 is enough to be a consenting adult in some actual reasonable countries.

Honestly it comes across to me not as him defending rapists, but actually just genuinely not understanding how rape works. The guy somehow understands people less than I do, and that’s saying something.

Authoritarianism is all about concentrating power around fewer people. That what authoritarianism IS. Giving more power to the least powerful people is always anti-authoritarian. Yes, there are always trade-offs, no they’re not always as obvious as this one, but more power to more people is never authoritarian.

The short simple version is that if galaxies happen to be close enough to each other they fall toward each other faster than the space between them expands. That’s what “gravitationally bound” means.

Fallout 4 kind of in a weird place where it’s simultaneously a bad Fallout game and arguably the best Bethesda game. How much you like it really just depends on which of those things you’re more into. I’ve personally never really gotten the appeal of Bethesda games. I usually end up spending 90% of my time going through my inventory analyzing the price to weight ratio of all the worthless junk I’ve accumulated, and the worlds have always just felt really shallow to me personally, but clearly I’m in the minority. I am sort of curious why more people seem to have agreed with me on Fallout 4 than on Skyrim though. I guess maybe it’s just that the people who talk about it the most are more likely to be Fallout fans than Bethesda fans.