Meh. Absolute proof only exists in mathematics. You have to make inferences at some point. To me, my "conclusions" seem obvious. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If the evidence of Trump's character was only just one data point, I would just give them the benefit of the doubt. But, his campaign is promoting Nazi propaganda. He says he'll be a dictator on day one. The heritage foundation says a second U.S. revolution is coming, which will be bloodless, if the "left" doesn't fight back. There's just so much evidence of Trump's character, and the far-right's stated plans, the "conclusion" os inescapable. Anyone who says otherwise is just putting on blinders or being willfully ignorant, IMO.
31337
joined 2 years ago
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/michael-reinoehl-killing-investigation.html
Evidence is light, inconclusive, but there. Which isn't unsurprising, given the "blue wall of silence." I'm going to lean on trusting protestors and reputable news orgs and journalists over the government and criminal justice system. Just like I don't think politicians in Russia just have bad luck with windows or coming into contact with poisonous substances.
Xenophobia and racism, mostly. And yes, it's a solution to the aging demographic crisis many countries face (at least in the medium-term).
I remember seeing a video of a presentation back in the Bush years by some neo-con group that advocated for immigration to Pentagon or DoD officials or something. The argument for immigration was mostly the same: we have an aging population, so we could integrate immigrants (who are statistically younger) to solve this issue. I didn't agree much with the broader idea of the presentation though. The broader idea was that there were still some parts of the world not a part of the global U.S.-led hegemony (mostly the middle-east and Africa), and we must spread democracy and capitalism to them. The argument was that globalism/capitalism ensures peace, and that both WWI and WWII happened because globalism was falling apart shortly before those wars. So, to ensure world peace, we need to globalize the entire earth and bring all countries into the the U.S.-led hegemony, even if that means starting wars to spread democracy, lol.
Poor countries, such as the countries people are immigrating from, have a more terrible environment and higher birth-rates.
Kamala isn't very likeable, and I saw a recent interview (about Biden's debate performance) where she acted pretty unhinged. She talked at Anderson Cooper like he was a child, had a wierd speech cadence, and smiled psychotically.
Only thing I know about her is she was a DA and prosecuted a lot of people for cannabis.
I'm actually not sure if she'd have a better chance at winning than Biden.
If, somehow, Biden wins, I'd bet she'd be president soon after. Rumors are Biden's sundowning, and isn't very coherent after 3pm. That's only going to get worse, forcing him to step-down (or one would hope).
Harris would probably be a status-quo (i.e. actual conservative) president. Not good, but not as bad as a fascist president.
I don't think Trump thought he would win, so he was unprepared, and he had some of the most incompetent people possible around him. He and the people around him will be prepared this time. A plan has already been drafted (Project 2025) by, presumably, intelligent people at right-wing think-tanks. Also, his rhetoric has changed, becoming similar to other historical and current dictators, and his "policies" have become more fascist (e.g. rounding up 11 million people in the U.S. for detention and forcible relocation).
Furthermore, while he was president, he did do some pretty dictator-like things. He had federal officers in unmarked vans abduct protestors with bags over their heads. He had the US Marshals assassinate Michael Reinoehl. He tried to get election results changed. And he tried a coup.
I think his, and his future administration's goal will be to establish a one-party-rule, similar to Russia's, with a more christofascist flavor. His and his family's personal goals will be to enrich themselves by selling-out the state, and the christofascist stuff just provides them with the coalition they need to do so.
Yeah, a lot of the regulations are written by the industries they're supposed to regulate.
I don't understand the Scrum one. Scrum is also agile with short development cycles, and prioritizes communication with the product owners and stakeholders.
I've never heard of lean development, but not a fan of "lean manufacturing," at least not the way it's commonly implemented in the U.S. (using primarily temp workers so they can ramp up and down their workforce as needed; and it also exacerbates supply-chain problems).
If they ever flip back to a Democrat majority, it's going to take decades to undo all the damage this court has done (and they'll still have the incentive to not undo stuff like this).
I believe this happened, and is still happening in regards to Texas ignoring the SC ruling about letting federal Border Patrol agents access to certain parts of the border.
Some of it has to do with CAFE standards using vehicle footprint to determine the target MPG. Some of it is because of better safety standards. Some of it is just because that's what a certain portion of the market wants, and the profit margins on the large vehicles are higher, so they spend more money marketing them (creating more demand).
That's why I only use mentats.