NoSorryCannot

It's not a myth, it's an institution that requires confidence and defense, like any other.

The basis is the last 60 years or so. Looking earlier than the seventies or so and the parties are recognizable in name only. There's been a pretty radical shift in party ideologies, particularly identity politics, over the last century.

Republicans of half a century ago would have hanged the modern republican party politicians as traitors and seditionists.

It strikes me that having a duality of political groups like this doesn't mean they both have equal legitimacy or deserve equal platform.

American conservatives have pretty eagerly woven prejudice into the ideological fabric of the party. Similarly the party seems willing to promote or at least enable blatant criminality.

They made their socially-regressive bed and now they can lie in it. "Fiscal conservatives" who don't see themselves in the rest of the picture would be right to feel disenfranchised.

At this point I expect the acronym to stay put (at least for a spell) even if the roll call doesn't.

"mounting" CSVs is something sqlite can do, sqlite.org/csv.html

Oh yeah, facing the worst health crisis in a century and it's disingenuous to not engage the Republican talking points despite there being zero evidence for them (and there is evidence to the contrary!) while they systematically dismantle the postal service from the inside to "save money" right now, in this moment.

No, they don't deserve the legitimacy of being engaged with as if what's going on isn't criminal or corrupt. It is, and those are the facts on the ground.

Tangentially related, the "futuristic" displays in video games and movies and TV often look worse than what we'd see in real life.

Sometimes it's a hologram, which would be cool even if the fidelity were a bit shit, but it's interesting that art directors make them pretty bad looking even in fiction, presumably as a cue to the viewer that it's a hologram. Any fiction that portrays holograms as opaque and convincing usually plays it for surprise, because standard-issue holograms in fiction aren't convincing.

No, they haven't. Android usually permits software beyond the Google Play store but this is deliberately an obscure and deeply second-rate option. Android does what it can to steer users away.

No one was ever checking. It would have been pointless to try.

I really can't see a resemblance here with the kind of nefarious machinations with an agenda that are being referenced.

Copyright doesn't really control or distort the flow of media or ideas in a way that favors any particular politics.

It's political but it's not capital-P political.

Politics is a sufficiently broad idea that virtually all the machinery of society would qualify, but what's being spoken about here is the kind of politics that has to do with propaganda and information control. And indeed, this is not that.

There are many different usages of the word. The one in legal theory that, for example, is used by courts to exclude cases of a "political" nature is of course different from the one used in academia or else all cases would be forbidden!

One of the chief functions of a mainstream dictionary is to guide users on usage. Irregardless of the principles possessed by Merriam-Webster's editors, they still have to warn readers when a usage will be conspicuous. Chumming the water for pedants can only be a distraction.

The only common platform I'm aware of that has this limitation is iOS. Are there others?

While difficult for me to characterize, I feel that there is a middle ground for more casual interactions that doesn't call for maximum rigor so as to fend off the most radical claims. In practice, we can just dismiss them without engaging.

The juxtaposition is what's noteworthy, not that the neighborhood is expensive.

Gruesome murders are salacious enough; it happening to a wealthy entrepreneur inside his expensive Manhattan home is especially rare.

For many reasons, people seem to be interested when tragedy strikes the rich or glamorous.

Single board computers are numerous, mostly but not entirely at the low end, and no cabled interconnects is the defining trait of the class.

The reason we don't see as much of this in full-size desktops is because density is clearly not the objective and it would mean sacrificing the modularity and flexibility of established standards.

Or in other words, more expensive with no real gain besides aesthetics, which aren't worthless but I'd bet they aren't worth _much_ for a box which spends most of its time under a desk concealing its insides.

It is astonishing that we can't even agree that the photo is erotic.

Or that there's a meaningful difference between media you choose to consume for entertainment (which may be honest-to-goodness porn and that's _fine_) and irrelevant eroticism casually sprinkled in tech demos that don't explicitly involve sex.

I wish we could at least be real about the facts in evidence.

This is a really big stretch in interpretation but also in plausibility, since Latin is a dead language.

But if it were true, then you'd have it your way: it'd also be inappropriate in professional settings that don't naturally necessitate it.

Fortunate for us that there is a similar race to apologize for erotic photographs in tech demos, as if it's not an obvious anachronism.

Really, defending something so clearly out-of-place is deeply suspicious. Maybe everyone can handle it but why are we being asked to?

If lorem ipsum were softcore erotica...

Yes, of course, and they often do go out of business.

Not OP, but

You might not know anything about risk-taking behavior of firefighters but you may already have some vague belief like "firefighters are heroes" that obliquely colors your impression of their behavior.

Or alternatively you might hold onto the info that Germany is colder because your underlying belief is more like, you don't like cold and you don't like Germany, so you'd like to also believe that Germany is colder than other places.

This entails two things. One, your apparent position on firefighter behavior or the weather in Germany can change depending on what in the context of the conversation is being construed as good or bad. Second, trying to inform you with specific facts on these issues is unlikely to change your mind because the drivers of your positions are your more general beliefs about firefighters and Germany.

In politics, I think partisanship often degenerates in this way. Arguing the issues is often just a facade for arguing for your party's position or arguing against an opposing party's position, regardless of merit. Facts won't work here to change minds.

Monopoly is a high bar to reach and antitrust cases don't always have to reach that bar to be viable. There's historically a lot of discretionary space in antitrust law just based on the political climate of the time, which generally deals with the calculus of determining if there is harm to consumers.

It's typical for harm to be argued along just one metric, prices for any particular individual, but I tend to think that's a mistake.

Space exploration gets such a small fraction of our resources as it is.

I agree we can invest and function better in other domains also. It's just not a choice we have to make; we easily have the bandwidth to do all of it.

And the practical benefit to space exploration or readiness is non-zero right now. Satellites, defense (from others but also celestial objects), climate science. The future hypotheticals, your "Sci fi", may one day be added to this list.

While true, it'd be nice if they could meet in the middle. Laptops and phones autodim but I can't say I've seen this on desktop monitors. I see dark mode (not enough of it though), auto dark mode much more rarely. Lights that autodim are a thing but not common and usually part of the internet of shit.

I don't really want to customize things multiple times daily. And if I have to pick, it will be dark, because it's easier on the eyes when the sun goes down and I dim the lights in anticipation of going to bed.

Re: hacking, preservation - - does Elsevier make reasonable assurances in this space beyond being a strawman that can be torn apart in a lawsuit? Is there a reason an open access platform could not make technological assurances that are as good or better?

This really seems like a good and fairly low-risk opportunity for universities to form a consortium of sorts to make their own publishing platform. And then maybe "impact" would be built in because they'd all be getting high on their own supply. But these institutions are strangely prone to silos despite the collaborative spirit of academia writ large so I don't see that happening.

Actually, we can have both.

The law has to be blind to different ideas being expressed; they are all valid, with reasonable limitations. And so it was: despite being overwhelmingly unpopular, antilockdown protests were generally carried out unimpeded.

The popular perception isn't bound to be equitable in this way, nor should it be, nor is it obliged to be uniform.

It is totally valid to carry the opinion that protesting lock downs is less legitimate than protesting police violence. There is no contradiction or injustice here.

Somebody that holds this opinion might argue that while both sets of protestors are willingly putting themselves at risk, one was campaigning for an action that would put others who didn't consent at greater risk and the other is campaigning for action that would protect people. That seems very consistent to me.

In both absolute terms and by averages, the protestors have demonstrated better individual restraint than law enforcement.

Which is quite an indictment considering the protestors can be joined by, as you noted, and random opportunist or provocateur.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't protest now because we haven't protested at such a scale in a while?

There have been protest since King, though not at this scale, no. The current circumstances are Political with a capital P, the class of things that can reshuffle a society. If this isn't the time to protest for redress of grievances, then there is no time.

And I disagree if you're arguing that protesting is not essential.

I find it unusual and upsetting that this comparison gets made so often.

On one side, you have the generally disorganized public which naturally includes the opportunistic, the provocative, the desperate. On the other, you have the police and the military, nominally organized with a largely uniform mission and code of conduct.

Bad behavior by the government is less excusable and also more threatening.