Solar and Wind can’t create a stable grid, you would need gas/coal backups.

Hydro is fine but causes a lot of damage to river ecosystems and there is so much hydro you can build.

Geothermal is probably best source of energy if you can get it but is only viable in few places.

It is 100% possible. Our school network at uni (including dorms) had a very strict no illegal seeding policy. It was possible to tweak uTorrent settings not to upload but if you messed it up, you were without internet for a day and there was a 3 strike policy.

Honestly, it is a bit concerning that it couldn’t have been shot down :/

Although having active SAM battery is probably too risky when not at war.

Its not what-about-ism.

Being accused of attacking civilians and saying the enemy is attacking civilians to divert attention is what-about-ism.

Crying that the enemy is attacking civilians while you are also attacking civilians is hypocrisy.

Calling out your own/allied government for attacking civilians and trying to hold them accountable even if the enemy attacks civilians as well is being a good person.

Yeah, they are terrorists. They don’t care about civilians. Big surprise.

The concerning thing is that Israel and US don’t seem to care about them either.

Not about infringement as much as getting caught and not being able to sell the watches that were surely expensive to develop.

Well, if I was on the board or a shareholder, I would be much more pissed about patent infringment that should have been easy to prevent and hints at incompetence over lower than expected sales which is just hard to predict.

Bomb Hamas until you can see China through the crater, I really don’t care. But most people living in Gaza did not choose this and are just caught in the middle.

I imagine you would not be happy if your whole apartment building with your family inside was bombed because your neighbor assaulted an officer.

In theory, no. SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over state election process (unless they give it to themselves, because who will stop them?).

But they have jurisdiction to interpret the federal constitution. Since this ruling is based on the federal constitution, SCOTUS may have jurisdiction because of that.

In a defamation lawsuit, it would not be X that had to prove it was a lie. It would be CCDH that had to prove it had evidence for their claims (notice that it does not need to be true, only has to be reasonable for CCDH to believe it is true based on evidence they had).

I decided to just go with a randomly generated name. Privacy and all :P Also, don’t have to stress over it being bad

The will federate, try their best to suck as many users from fediverse as possible into threads, then defederate and become a walled garden again.

As for how they will suck users away:

• Make their algorithms prefer posts from threads, so anyone wanting to reach a wider audience needs to move to threads
• Add twitter like checkmarks that are only available for users of threads (they will say it is for security since they need to verify the idwntity of checkmarked people)
• Add features that are not exposed on activity pub, so that you have to be on threads to use them (twitter did the same by for example not making polls available over API)
• Intentionally make their activity pub slow and unreliable to make it look like other instances are broken and threads is fast and reliable.
• Probably much more

I am using Liftoff right now, but certainly will give Sync a try once it is ready

More specifically in cases of defamation, it would be on the news agency to show evidence (and that they had the evidence at the time) that what they wrote is true. Now whether they have the evidence is one issue, whether they want to reveal the evidence and by extension their sources is another. So even if the news agency has the evidence to back up its claims, it may still choose to throw in “may” and “allegedly” rather than to have to show these things in court.

You say it as if not allowing people to send large files at all is somehow better than only allowing it sometimes.

Hmmm, I had mint for a little bit once. I don’t remember having any issues with it which probably means it is good. Paradoxically it also made me forget about it somewhat.

But I really have an urge to try NixOS for myself… And I don’t really want to mess with my parents setup now.

Legacy admissions are some real BS. I guess it does not ring alarm bells in my head as immediately because its not obviously unconstitutional. But it is a rather nice roundabout way of discriminating. For any school that takes public funds, legacy admissions should be forbidden.

No, I just don’t think it is slippery slope when they say from start what they want to do. Slippery slope would apply if they pretended to do something and once they got it, then tried to move it again.

It is just one of the clickbait definitions of slippery slope to call anything that is gradual slippery, so I kinda get it. Its just the media misusing words to generate controversy and outrage.

For me, saying no discrimination either way (affirmitive or negative) and working towards it is normal. Saying you want religious freedom when they don’t allow teaching religious topics in schools and then when they get it trying to undermine real science and hang up commandments in classrooms. That is slippery slope that I am outraged about. I don’t want to water to words down by these clickbaits, hence my comment.

First, to clarify: I live in the EU and kind of don’t care aboutt this stuff. We are doing pretty well on the nondiscrimination here. And I honestly don’t know about your issues enough to be for or against affirmitive action.

But I find it funny how often the democrats make bad faith arguments by redefining words. Affirmitive action is any decision bases on protected class that is supposed to be positive for an otherwise discriminated against minority to presumably undo discrimination. These scholarships would clearly be affirmitive action by this legal definition.

Sure, you may define affirmitive action differently but the conservatives would use (suprise suprise) the conservative (legal, dictionary) meaning when they talk. Saying they are hypocrites because you redefine the word to mean something different than what they clearly ment is clearly a bad faith argument.

PS: Also, trying to label anyone calling out your bad arguments as conservative racist regardless of who they are.

No, I also wouldn’t compare them if the post and the comment above did not mention Signal. Anyway, I can still make the point that worse ease of use is more difficult to sell.