Is this bullshit? This feels like bullshit.

The Moscow Times reports

No link? I couldn’t find it on their web site.

reportedly

is said to be

according to a Kremlin insider

is described as

Etc etc

Honestly this meme is way understating the sinisterness

• Election interference for money machine
• Whole internet is ads company
• Dopamine addiction for all children
• Superpowers for law enforcement

“glitches”

Hi! I feel like we just talked about this - there are quite a lot of Democrats who are actually currently pushing, with some level of success, for reforming the voting system away from the duopoly-favoring FPTP system.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense either for you or for some Democrat to support introducing 3rd parties in a big way into the existing FPTP system, splitting the vote and leading to a Republican win. It makes perfect sense to support reforming the system so that 3rd parties can gain traction without being spoiler candidates.

I wonder why you are fighting for that first thing and not that second thing. Seems like fighting for that second thing would make more sense, yes? Definitely more sense than somehow criticizing the Democrats for not wanting the first thing.

Since your goal is obviously good leftwards progress and victory for left wing causes, and all

Metal and paper recycling is super useful.

But yes, plastic recycling is a massive lie that probably does quite a bit more harm/waste than it would be just to throw it in the landfill

Everyone wants to belong

Everyone wants allies, close friends, brothers and sisters they can rely on and love and support

In the modern world we have pale imitations and crap. There is no village, there is only a dim landscape through which we shuffle, largely alone.

And so there is craving for some substitute, because the under structure is unfulfilled

May I offer you a fairly convincing explanation

It seems unlikely that it’s all that mysterious

OpenAI/Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Google

There you go I solved the mystery

TL;DR Here’s how my model works model model model anyway you gotta subscribe to hear the answer.

BOB: Well, when you have TIME magazine do a cover story on Palestinian rights you see that the perception of the problem is changing.

Any fuckin day now

Filled with self advocacy, more like

Shelter cats have limited avenues for expressing their disagreements, and it sounds like he’s being as measured and puncture-free in voicing his opinion as he feels like he needs to be

I’m the super paranoid guy about all of this stuff and this exact same thing occurred to me

Why are there a few different changes to sub and site policy connected with the concept of “misinformation”, but somehow skirting around the type of misinformation which it seems is the most pressing issue by far? I.e. accounts which are devoted to posting misinformation?

Honestly I thought the vegan cat food thing was handled semi ok. But surely that’s not the more pressing thing, to justify big team meetings and huge changes to policy and writing misinformation stuff into the legal side and user agreement.

Right?

BS like that may be against the communities rules since they aren’t posting in good faith. It getting very close to trolling territory.

Reply to a link to a big list of Democrats who are actively reforming the voting system with “What do I want the Democrats to do? How about stop sabotaging third parties and start fighting for the kind of voting reform that would actually reflect the will of the people?”: A OK

Highlight that the person who did that reply is not addressing important elements of the message they are replying to: BAD FAITH ARGBLBLBLB

Good luck with that, I guess. I’m perfectly open to input from mods or anybody if I am the asshole here, but in my mind the first is worse than the second.

Fuckin’ hell, I typed a long comment and Firefox crashed and I lost it. I’ll keep it short:

Idk why you are bent out of shape about me pointing out your bad faith. I originally posted a direct and polite response to your argument, and you ignored a big part of it and went on a long strawman tirade. THEN, I started “belittling” I guess, but it was still in service of making the point of how you were approaching the conversation. Maybe I shouldn’t do that but I felt like it was a creative way to make the point. If you wanted to have a factual exchange instead, great! But I started that way and it wasn’t reciprocated.

If you don’t want to talk any more, that is obviously okay. The fill in the blank answer was “supporting.” A lot of Democrats are “supporting” ranked choice voting which is a more realistic answer to the duopoly. Here’s the list I sent you previously

No, I replied to what you said with my points.

You didn’t, though. I said that there are quite a few Democrats who are supporting ranked choice voting, I.e. the effective form of the exact reform to the voting system that is the genuine solution to the duopoly. And that having the Democrats split the vote with a third party and lose isn’t any kind of step towards reform of anything, and that to accuse the Democrats of blocking reform because they don’t want that to happen, when the actual reform is something they are making happen, is silly.

Then you sent me back a big message all about what a travesty it is that the Democrats are blocking reform.

I get it if you feel like the method I chose to use to address that was a little convoluted and condescending. I mean, it was. But surely you can see how I could get a little startled on my side by the discontinuity and want to address and highlight it. No?

you were talking about FPTP and asked if I wanted dems to lose instead

Incorrect

Want I said was “What do you want them to do, try to lose, instead?”

Can you compare and contrast those two statements and why they are radically different?

There was also a pretty central point I made towards the end of the message, which you seem to have missed. I’ll give a hint: It was that quite a lot of Democrats have been s_ppor_ing efforts to reform the voting system so that third parties could have a decent chance of winning

And I had a link which listed quite a lot of them by name

Can you fill in the missing two letters in my fill in the blank? I’m tryin to make it easy to recall my argument here, which you seem to have missed in a particular ironic fashion hence the whole runaround of asking you what I had said.

I don’t think you are a bot, no. I think you forgot what I said, and what you replied with had absolutely no bearing on any point that I made or the link I included. You just kinda had something you wanted to say, and didn’t notice the relationship that existed between the points that I had made and the things you were typing “in response” to them, just kind of went ahead with typing your talking points as if I hadn’t said something that related to them in a pretty direct way.

So… what was it? I mean, you made a reply to me, so presumably you were responding in some sense to what I wrote down, so you should be able to skim your reply and recall what I linked to and remember your thought process when you were typing it up in response to the reply that you definitely read and understood. Right? Or not?

Hmm fascinating

So, I just now edited to take away my comment that you were responding to. Can you tell me what my comment said before I edited it? I.e. what parts of it you were responding to when you typed your response?

(Hello!)

Almost.

• Nuclear energy comes from natural materials of the earth that arrived in their current form (it is basically recycled supernova energy from long long ago)
• Geothermal comes ultimately from the gravitational energy of the earth itself compressing and heating it

Literally every other energy source (edit: aside from tidal and some others that people pointed out) is some form of modified and stored sunlight, in some way or another.