I think that electing someone as deranged as Trump — who basically would try anything and everything that a sane person wouldn’t risk out of self-preservation, we basically saw a speedrun of finding out all the weaknesses and exploits of our government, combined with proving that impeachment and removal is basically impossible as long as one party is in collusion with the president.

We might have gotten here anyway, but it might have been a decade or two rather than four short years.

And the Supreme Court wouldn’t look like it does and be doing what’s it’s doing, which is also now a speedrun of horror.

I’ll never forgive Americans for 2016.

Ubermeets

At my first developer job 25 years ago, any time we made a change in the code we had to add a comment at the end of each modified line with our initials and the date, because we had no version control.

OP is using Dutch, not German

A good rule of thumb is that any word etymology that is an acronym is probably false if the word is more than 100 years old.

Based on the sentence construction it has to be a noun regardless of the meaning tho

What, you’ve never heard of a taste test?

If you mean that Pennsylvania Dutch is a dialect of German and that Dutch and Deutsch share a common origin, then that is true.

It’s because Germany wasn’t a unified place until not that long ago, so different neighbors came up with their own way to refer to them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Germany

In a version that doesn’t even fully make sense. With databases there is a well-defined way to sanitize your inputs so arbitrary commands can’t be run like in the xkcd comic. But with AI it’s not even clear how to avoid all of these kinds of problems, so the chiding at the end doesn’t really make sense. If anything the person should be saying “I hope you learned not to use AI for this”.

Neither can ChatGPT

You’re saying that trying to motivate people positively to move on from meat is “push the blame away” behavior. But I think tut-tutting individuals who eat meat is pushing the blame away.

While there are some people who believe that eating meat is an absolute moral wrong no matter where or when it takes place in human history, a lot of people who feel eating meat is immoral feel this way because of what the meat industry does, both to the animals and to the planet. Five thousand years ago, people weren’t supporting the meat industry and all its wrongs by eating meat.

So considering it to be pathetic to try to effect real reduction in people’s meat consumption because the methods shift blame away from the individual meat eater seems really ironic to me, as well as completely counterproductive, if your goal is less meat consumption in the world.

I’m no fan of organized religion at all but:

“None of you has faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

Sounds pretty similarly chill to me.

The problem is that these texts have so many contradictory statements that they can be used to justify anything anyway.

This thread is starting to remind me of this

The worst version of this I’ve ever seen is a site that enforced a password policy on the “current password” field on the “change password” interface. I had an existing password that violated their policy (either because they changed the policy or a technician created a “temporary” password for me, I forget), and I could not change it to a proper password because my current password would get rejected.

In the latter half of the 90s it was popular with young people in general

I don’t know. When I actually observe what people on the left say, they offer a path and don’t just rail against the right. It just doesn’t make headlines.

And you can say that means they need to do better at controlling the narrative, but I think the problem is that negative stuff has an inherent advantage when it comes to making headlines. So when the right does their outrageous negative shit: automatic headlines. When the left offers hope and reason: crickets.

Doesn’t mean the left can shrug their shoulders and not strive for better, but they are at an inherent disadvantage because of the nature of our society. (And if you want to say this is largely the fault of capitalism out of control then you’d get no argument from me.)

The entire spoiler or dividing vote hoax is based on this false assumption that the voters carry the responsibility for not voting for a “lesser evil” candidate when that burden of responsibility should instead be on the nominee for not doing enough in their power to win over votes

No, that’s just plain incorrect. The spoiler vote phenomenon is an inevitable consequence of our first-past-the-post election system. Whatever you start from, this voting system trends to two parties over time. You can model this and watch it play out. It’s not a hoax. We even saw Ross Perot make a serious run at the presidency in the 90s, and he ended up with zero electoral votes, and 4 years later he did much worse and his Reform party fizzled out and nothing came of it. Because it is absolutely suboptimal in our voting system.

Poe’s Law makes it impossible to know how to vote this comment

Yes, it’s clear as day that he’s trying to illustrate that Trump isn’t interested in actually solving problems. And if he actually takes the bait and does it, it would basically force the GOP’s hand in Congress to pass a bill.