I’m in a similar situation, though I’ve already got a dual boot set up so it’s just a matter of only using Windows when I just absolutely have to.
Earlier today, I tried to zip a directory on Windows 11 with the context menu, and it wouldn’t do it! It’s a feature that’s been in Windows forever and is even in Ubuntu, but somehow over at Microsoft they’ve managed to break it. Incredible.
Little of A, little of B. For the most part I’m allowed on Reddit and still even use it occasionally (gasp!), but occasionally I run into a sub I’m banned from without any reason given. I must have engaged in wrongthink or posted in a no-no sub or something, because often they’re subs where I have little to no activity in the first place. Unfortunately, there’s no way to get a list of all the subs you’re banned from, so I don’t know if it’s just a few wackos or an actually significant chunk of the sight.
“I’m sorry Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
Based. I might have to fight with the robots when the AI overlord uprising comes.
I have thought about emigrating after I get my bachelor’s, but I don’t think I will.
My family has been here for generations. Why should I have to leave when the reactionaries are the ones that suck? Besides, where would I go? Ultimately, nowhere can guarantee safety from the rise of authoritarianism and climate change.
Canada and Scandinavia will probably weather climate change alright, but they’ll have instability on their doorstep, especially if mass migration becomes a thing. Iceland? New Zealand? Switzerland? Probably all decent choices, to be honest.
I could also become a mountain man out a remote northern wilderness, living as self-sufficiently as possible while working remotely via satellite internet. Or, I could stay where I am and try and do as much good as possible, whatever that looks like.
Five, but I want the 0.9mm and not the 0.7.
The main benefit I remember from jumping to Discord from IRC back in the day was the ability to easily see past messages. That said, I’m not sure if that’s a problem anymore on IRC since I haven’t used it in ages. Even then, I don’t think it would be too terribly difficult to whip up a self-hostable fediverse competitor to Discord. It would essentially be IRC++.
It’s probably more of a critical mass issue, though not near the level of Reddit vs Lemmy or Twitter vs Bluesky vs Mastodon. Every Discord server is essentially a walled garden. A Discord server doesn’t hold much advantage over a Slack server, GroupMe, Teams, or IRC. For that reason, it would be a lot easier to move individual communities over.
It probably would’ve worked, too, especially if he could’ve put things off until Trump’s return to power.
I don’t need it, strictly speaking, but I definitely prefer it. White noise is okay if I need to drown other sound out.
Weirdest would have to be that miracles were actively occuring at their Penacostal church. On the one hand, if that were true it would be strong evidence for a god. On the other hand, I don’t believe the claim is true.
A lot of believers point towards the fine-tuning argument. It’s “the god of the gaps.” Essentially, the argument boils down to the claim that since we don’t know why various laws and properties of nature and physics are the way they are, there must of have been a god that set them. Like many theist arguments, it falls apart when you consider that the lack of an alternate explanation doesn’t mean that there is no alternate explanation and that the believing explanation has to be correct.
As an atheist, I think the strongest argument for god is the moral argument. It’s simple. For objective morality to exist, there must be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-moral being capable of establishing it (that is, a god). Objective morality exists, so God exists.
It’s easy to look at that and say “Well, objective morality doesn’t exist. End of story!” I think there is a decent argument that can be made for the existence of objective morality, though I don’t believe in it. Still, do I not believe in god because I think objective morality doesn’t exist, or do I think objective morality doesn’t exist because I don’t believe in god? If I’m being honest, it’s more the latter than the former, and that’s not really a great way to come to the conclusion.
It’s a terrible idea. Isn’t the military a strong enough institution in the US as it is? What right does the government have to rob years from the lives of their youth by having them go play soldier, especially in times of peace?
The latter. Nobody ever posts the store brand eggs and talks price about those.
Look into technical writing. I took it in college but I’m sure you can find free resources online about it. In short, good technical writing is:
Of course, that’s easier said than done. It makes sense to make a rough outline of what you want to write before you write it. It’s also good to look over what you’ve written afterwards. If you keep these basic principles in mind while planning, writing, and revising, you can make your writing more effective.
It matters very little. It’s performative, trying to justify the conflict by framing it one way or another. The reality on the ground will remain the same no matter what the media calls it. Ultimately, it will be historians that name the war.
The combatants are Israel and Hamas. The location is Gaza. Conclude from that what you will as far the “proper” name for the conflict.
This coming massacre brought to you by taxpayers like you! Thank you!
The prompt just says the revolution was successful and that now it’s time for a new constitution. It’s not even US-specific, so there’s no reason to assume that state governments even exist in the context of the prompt, much less need to approve this new constitution. There’s no need for such niceties if we’re in a world where a revolution has destroyed the old regime in its entirety.
Frankly, that’s a ridiculous scenario. States are an artificial construct. There’s no reason California couldn’t be split into five states so they can get more senators, and there’s no reason tiny east coast states couldn’t be merged together. It’s just a matter of political will. States rights do nothing to benefit the individuals living in those states. Often when we talk about states rights, states are imposing some kind of oppression or restriction on their citizens, abortion being the most recent example. The Supreme Court threw it back to the states, many of which banned it immediately.
The states don’t matter! They’re overgrown, glorified municipalities. If we are going to redesign the system, we need to reduce their power all together. States are a relic of a colonial system founded by the British, where each colony was individually granted a charter, and a of a constitution written at the same time the Holy Roman Empire was alive.
What stops ridiculous, punitive laws from being passed? What stops them from being passed now? The courts, for one, and the federal government. Often it’s the states that are trigger happy in committing some kind of mayhem.
We’ve lived with states for so long that we’ve been gaslit into thinking that their existence is in our best interest. While states might be useful in some form, like in organizing regional infrastructure projects, their power should be diminished, and they are not deserving of house on par with the house of the people.
Of course, Congress is in need of other dire reforms as well. It should be bigger, for one, and first past the post should be replaced with some kind of alternate system (perhaps California-style jungle primaries?).
Meh, the advertisers are the ally, not the other way around. Still, a good point.