@DradisPing's banner p

DradisPing


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:08:46 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1102

DradisPing


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 11:08:46 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1102

Verified Email

I don't think he bungled anything there. To secure his re-election he needed to repeat the crazy high black turnout of 2008. That might not have happened if race relations were cool and calm.

His campaign portrayed him as black to blacks, non-white to other minorities, and post-racial to whites.

His actual views are a bit harder to pin down...

His mother raised him with stories about what a great African leader his father was. Obama was probably initially planning to go into the state department. He seems to have been recruited before he went to Columbia U and his assigned roommate just happened to be the son of a prominent politician from Pakistan (or some other Muslim country, I'm not 100% sure).

While at Columbia he seems to have had a change of heart.

He decided he wanted to be a black leader in the US, and moved to Chicago after graduating. So from 85-97 you can find some more identity focussed quotes from him because he was trying to get accepted by Chicago voters for an eventual run.

Michelle used to baby sit for Jesse Jackson, so getting an in with the Chicago political machine was part of her appeal.

He seems to have realized that he sold much better to white liberals than Chicago blacks. They wanted someone with stronger links to the community. Becoming president was more realistic than becoming mayor of Chicago.

2, but it's less heirarchal than you're thinking. A chunk of prominent insiders have decided to see if they can push out Biden. They are getting the press to run damaging stories and contacting other Dems to rally support.

So there are a lot of people who know what's going on, it's not just their close friends.

Michelle Obama's name always comes up on these things because she's one of the few prominent people that the Dems could unite behind easily. I don't think she wants it. Her current life involves hanging out with celebrities and the super wealthy who all tell her how awesome she is. Then she gets paid to give talks to people who tell her how awesome she is.

There's nothing in her history that suggests she'd rather go to Michigan and listen to the problems of the hoi polloi. Or that she's particularly interested in having to make decisions about geopolitics.

how did this candidate not know the TCP 3 way handshake cold?

I've always thought of the tcp handshake as more of a tech shibboleth. It's something you pick up if you've been around, but I've never actually needed to know it. What's your experience on that?

Did nobody think having these clearly bonkers people on staff was a bad idea?

Ratfucking teams end up filled by people who can't manage a normal career. The risk / benefit ratio is terrible for a more stable person. You get people who need excitement.

We need to get the bureaucratic middlemen out of the way, not incentivize them to get even more involved.

The bureaucratic middlemen are the public sector employees. Politicians are the only ones who can get them in line. Right now the pols have no reason to pick a fight, and that's the problem I'm trying to solve.

It's the bluest county in a red state. If the case gets transferred due to Fani Willis' scandals no other DA is going to pick it up.

If I had to choose between being one of the richest people in America and one of the most famous people in America I'd pick the money.

Famous for what? Justine Sacco became world famous in 2013, and she wishes she didn't.

This isn't well developed enough for a main thread post, but it's something I've been mulling around lately.

Are we too hard on small scale corruption from politicians? Politicians motivated by implementing their grand vision seems like they'll screw things up. If they're motivated by accolades from their ideological group members it can also lead to bad things. A guy who wants to keep things running smoothly so he can skim a little doesn't sound too bad in comparison.

This is partly motivated by thinking about the housing situation in Ontario (Canada). Various interests have collided to create a continuing housing bubble. Many politicians have invested in rental units. Municipal governments have shifted to development fees to avoid property tax increases. The urban left has been fighting for no housing until there's enough subsidized affordable housing for the needy, ie them. No one puts pressure on the bureaucrats at various levels of government to approve things. Trudeau has been brining in vast numbers of immigrants despite the housing shortage to keep the bubble going.

Here's my idea. On top of the rent, each unit has to pay a monthly $30 fee. $10 for their municipal, provincial, and federal representative. This money goes straight into the politicians bank account.

Suddenly politicians will have an interest in getting new rental housing on the market.

greens-proteins-fat-carbs sounds like it's trying to fill you up on greens and protein so you don't overdo it on the fat and carbs.

Apple cider vinegar seems to have some insulin benefits: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31451249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8243436/

But I admit I don't understand where that's coming from. With white vinegar you'd be tossing a spoonful of dilute acetic acid into the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which doesn't seem like it would do much. Looks like your stomach lowers pH when you've consumed a protein meal. So this could all be about lowering your stomach pH. With ACV there's probably some beneficial residue from the fermentation.

A lot of diet claims are like traditional medicine. A nonsense process that results in healthy behavior.

The big one to watch out for is vegans. There are a lot of people who are vegan/vegetarian for ideological reasons and consider it their moral duty to make health claims to promote veganism even if it isn't backed by any real science.

One surprising thing some politicians before campaigns is TRT. Higher testosterone levels can make you verbally quicker and wittier. Andrew Sullivan wrote about it back in the '00s.

Of course it can also boost your sex drive, which is probably why Anthony Weiner kept getting caught up in sexting scandals whenever he tried to run.

No one is piss testing presidential candidates, so that's not a concern.

In any event, whether vessels in restricted fisheries have to pay for observers required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or whether the North Atlantic Fisheries Service has to pay for them isn't likely to be a topic of discussion here when the lower courts make their determination.

My understanding is that congress allowed fishing councils to pass regulations to require observers, but that would be balanced against the NAFS budget for enforcement. Deciding that every ship needed a compliance observer and the ship needed to pay for it was a huge bureaucratic expansion.

Under Obama the EPA classified CO2 as a pollutant subject to their jurisdiction. Taken to absurdity, the EPA could start requiring every household pay for their own emissions observer to monitor their gas stove usage, car idling, and excessive breathing.

Obviously that's too far. But imagine if forcing the ships to pay without legislation becomes a well established government right. The ATF could start forcing various businesses to pay for frequent inspections.

The SCOTUS just ruled on the Missouri v Biden case about the government interfering with social media. The SCOTUS wussed out and declared no standing. Twitter / X probably realized it was going to go the government's way when no opinion was released last week.

So we're back to the government juicing "appropriate" narratives.

The issue is mandatory insurance / government money for "gender affirming" treatments. Plastic surgery isn't covered.

Very few parents have both the inclination and the money to trans their kid. If the courts weren't forcing government / insurers / parents to pay then their would be so few cases it wouldn't be seen as a problem the legislature needs to tackle.

From the POSIWID perspective, one could consider the purpose of pride month to be to spike hostility against LGBT people, so why do it?

They aren't trying to spike hostility, they are trying to make their opponents feel ruled. Spiking hostility is meant to show them how impotent and powerless they are.

Anderson was rushed because removing Trump from the ballot during primary season was an irremediable injury. Other states would have have tried to do the same thing and clearing up the issue needed to be done.

United States v. Trump is different because the prosecution's demands for a speedy trial aren't well grounded in any legitimate need. Courts often move slow, 2-4 years wouldn't be unusual given the number of documents and unique legal issues.

Skipping the appeals courts would have been strange. SCOTUS will typically let the appeals courts have their say so they can take those arguments into consideration. Jack Smith tried to time things so he could get a DC conviction before the election and appeals courts wouldn't be able to weigh in until after the election. SCOTUS didn't see any reason to help him do that.

The press tends to have a "no enemies to the left" policy where even the most radical leftists are seen as well meaning but misguided. More broadly this view seems to be common in a lot of university grads.

So the right has an inherent disadvantage in communications. They have to spend effort talking up their candidate and attacking their opponent to get to the point that the left gets to for free. Smaller right wing candidates tend to not do well because they don't have the resources or institutional support to get positive exposure.

If the right starts winning then the left can shift it's support from the centre leftist to a farther leftists who's already branded as a "good person".

So for the left it tends to let the press blow wind into multiple sails, while the right has to face cannons from multiple angles.

Additionally no one has the time to do a deep dive on multiple candidates for things like congressional races. Voters won't know much about candidates besides their ethnicity, so it promotes racial politics.

She actually doesn't look much different in the show. I think someone taught her to do an Instagram model face for that photo where she sucks in her cheeks and puts her lips in a weird position.

I'm guessing that Eric Kripke has been struggling with the direction of writing this season. Basically the writing room needs a strong leader to steer things, and that's not happening.

So the only ideas that are getting into scripts are shallow attacks on the out group. Because if you speak out against the critical supe theory joke, you're a potential Trump sympathizer.

I think the rest of the season is probably going to suck. It's possible that they'll get it together but I think they are just going to get burnt out from the arguing and things will end on a bad note.

It is possible that they focussed on the later episodes, fleshed them out in detail, then realized they didn't have enough storyline material for the early episodes.

Making heroes fight each other for questionable reasons with no lasting consequences is a proud comics tradition. Seeing them fight each other is fun, and that's what Marvel wanted on screen.

If a suicide bomber's explosion is magically diverted and accidentally destroys a floor of a building, thus killing dozens of people but also saves the lives of dozens on the ground, no one is going to think the magician is the criminal. Well, the lizardman constant may apply, but certainly you won't have a plurality to call for her head.

They had to keep it simple, but you don't need to change things too much to make it realistic. There would need to be a strong existing political movement demanding superhuman registration that's popular with DC types. The terrorists would need to be from a State Department backed group. Slightly muddle what happens.

In that situation the press would aggressively spin the things to get their preferred policy and protect their friends in DC.

Can someone clue me in on what actually happened with the Adopt Indian Métis program and programs like it? In the show, it’s implied (I think) to be literal kidnapping of Native American children by the Canadian government, but I have a hard time believing that’s true.

The view of natives by educated liberals was very different at the time. Now people think of them like wood elves with a sacred culture. At the time they were viewed more as backwards illiterate hillbillies who needed to be brought into the modern era.

So there were no foster homes in native areas. If a child needed to be put into the system they were shipped off to a city and adopted. This was before birth control pills so young mothers having children they couldn't take care of was more common.

There's still a lot of debate about how aggressive social workers should be, so I'm sure it is easy to find cases where the child should have stayed in the home.

It'll be a lot harder if it's outside of Austin and there's some sort of vesting structure.

They aren't supposed to be able to shut down new companies since they are supposed to be limited to recouping damages. They don't have any right to try to silence future speech or prevent Jones from making a living.

Curious what your background is.

In English typesetting they always used curly apostrophes. Keyboards only have one key for both single quotes and apostrophes, so straight apostrophes are more common for text on the web.

Word processors and now phones usually correct a straight apostrophe to a curly one.

I've never heard anyone say curly apostrophes are incorrect before. I've only had people get upset for not using ’ in websites.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6711892/right-single-apostrophe-vs-apostrophe

https://cmosshoptalk.com/2019/03/19/smart-apostrophes-cmos-6-117/