Because only 1500 of the 1700 nukes working would make such a big difference.
Strictly speaking, it makes sense that you don't ask the DOJ to prosecute their boss, considering if DOJ threw the case, he could not be prosecuted again later due to double jeopardy.
Instead, presidents are to be judged by Congress through impeachment, since Congress is supposed to be independent.
Does not really change anything since congress is too broken by partisan politics to do anything, but I just wanted to point out where the issue really is.
Yeah, only around 2-3% of the white voters switching Dem would make up for the extra Latinos voting for Trump. On the other hand, blaming the voter instead of candidate is missing the point.
27% more (while significant) is really low compared to the disproportionate focus on violence against women. It shows 44% of domestic violence victims are ignored by the Istambul convention due to sexism, and even that is assuming the number is accurate (see also pixxelkicks reply).
He is not explaining current world events, he is making one simple statement. The why has no relevance to the truth of that one statement (as far as I can tell). It seems to me you don't like the statement, so you try to bring in irrelevant points instead of accepting it. This is the kind of irrational thinking that makes people vote for Trump. I am not saying this to insult you, all humans are prone to this kind of thinking. I say it so you can strive to improve.
Of course, if I am mistaken, then just ignore this.
Why?...
Is that in any way relevant to the point Dagwood222 was making?
what came before. 🤔
A better system that was destroyed and replaced by worse one? Proving Dagwood222 right?
Eh, while cash bail should be ended, it's disingenuous to claim there is no reasoning for it's existence.
Well, DC was very explicitly created so that the capital would not be in any state, so while they should get senators and representatives, they should not become a state.
I mean sure, that is how some (mostly strategy and tactical) games do it, but for an FPS, figuring out where the buffer should be would be a programmers nightmare. I guess you would have to try to calculate all possible lines of sights a player could have within some buffer time (100-1000ms) and then all players that could in theory enter them... Add physics and it is practically impossible.
Also, corner hack is useful enough and it does not address aimbot. IMO the answer is some combination of human moderation and ability to play with "friends" instead of randos. E.g. you could ask people to like or dislike a player at the end of a match and try to pair players that liked each other in the past.
That does not detect things like wall hack and aim-bots that don't modify the game state directly.
In XMPP, e2e encryption (just like everything else) is an optional extension. So in practice half the clients don't support e2ee, half support different version of e2ee (can't talk to each other) and pretty much all e2ee are likely full of holes since there are too many implementations to review.
In Matrix, e2ee is in a library that all clients can use, so while it is not Signal, it provides decent security.
Yeah, I realized my mistake almost immediately and deleted the comment but apparently not fast enough.
As far as I know, Space X has nothing to do with design, construction or operation of the satellites, they just deliver them to orbit. So Musks clearance probably never gave him too much access in the first place. Of all the things I worry about, this isn't really one of them.
Approval voting absolutely sucks. Not for any mathematical reason, it may very well give us the best results mathematically, but for psychological reasons. If you give approval to both the safe (popular) candidate and your preferred one, then you won't feel you have expressed your preference once the popular candidate wins. If you only approve your preferred candidate and an opposing (very undesirable) candidate wins, you again regret not voting tactically. In either case, you justifiably have no confidence in the results.
Also, as a candidate, how do you get people to not mark other candidates in addition to you? The answer is you don't run on your own positions but attacking opponents. Not very healthy for democracy.
I need to think more on STAR.
If you weren't so broke, you would know there is also Switzerland. ;)
You do realize some countries in Europe have federal governments (Germany for example), right? And then these completely independent countries are part of the EU which have EU elections. So you have federation within federation. Also, the EU has higher population than the USA. We don't even all speak the same language. We are allowed to move between EU countries whenever we like and have residence where we please.
I think its not Europeans that don't understand.
update: In case it is not clear, being registered automatically is the same as not having to register, which is what the post is about. Idk what that update word salad is supposed to be or why it is an update instead of a reply.
"But what about rich white kids"
Yeah, a great argument...
I would be very unhappy if I saw this spacecraft, that still has probably more than 95% chance of bringing me home safely if something happened, leave with no alternative in sight.
Again, brandishing is not an issue where I live.
If anything, I would prefer the attacker see me rack the pistol just for the psychological effect, hopefully avoiding having to fire.
More importantly, I live in a peaceful country. The chances I get hit by a car or suffer a heart attack are greater then that I will need to defend myself with a weapon. So if a paramedic needs to handle the gun when I am incapacitated, I would prefer there was not a round in the chamber rather than fearing the tiny chance I will mess up the rack in the tiny chance I will need the gun at all. (btw, I currently don't everyday carry at all. The neighbourhood I live and work in is so safe I don't see the point.)
Of course, if I had to go to Afganistan or Detroit, I would definitely want a round in the chamber. 😁
If you want communism, you can start a commune
I see this way too often here on Lemmy, so I want to post this. Starting a commune is legal in most countries. If you believe in communism, you can found a commune and show us all how great it is.
You lack money? Well, that is literally what stock markets and venture capitalists (capitalism) are created to solve. If you are ready for an IPO, you can sell shares to raise funds. If you are not, you can get Venture Capital in exchange for shares until you are ready for an IPO.
Getting rid of capitalism means you need to find a different way to obtain funding for new ventures. And if your system relies on government charity (some government board handing you money) or taking resources violently, than your system sucks.
Edit: I don't mean that this is a replacement for full communist system. I mean this as a way to get some of the advantages while showing sceptics (like me) it can work and is better. A first step.