computational linguist more like bomputational bimgis
It's really not the same attitude. JD Vance is a terrible pick, literally anyone else who would replace him would do better
I live in Georgia, can confirm. Don't go anywhere near the rural parts of this hellhole, especially if you're black or have some sort of other trait which southerners & conservatives discriminate against. Don't even think about taking weed with you in a car outside of Atlanta or Savannah. If you get arrested here, you're not going to be able to leave any time soon. And there's no laws which require compensating the wrongfully incarcerated or convicted.
If Georgia were a county, it would have the 4th highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than El Salvador and Rwanda. The only ones that beat it are other US states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma).
I would also avoid Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Not only because you might be wrongfully thrown in jail or prison, or get shot or something, but because those are just terrible places to exist in to begin with. At least Georgia has a decent amount of blue in it. Although our whitest counties bestowed upon the world Marjorie Taylor Greene and the guy who voted against making lynching a federal hate crime, so maybe it balances out. (this guy's political career has been CARTOONISHLY evil by the way, it's wild reading the Wikipedia article about him, I mean every red politician from Georgia is but it's still shocking actually reading what these people do)
I somehow don't think we will, considering the original commenter is seemingly pretending that they didn't see the comment. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard to believe that they're actually telling the truth about any part of what they said considering they apparently think Trump is the best candidate we have. American centrist and right wing policies are pretty anti-poor.
He uses "left" to refer to Democrats in his comments so I just assumed he meant it here too.
My only guess is that they mean "a for-profit church" when they say "a nonprofit that feeds the poor and temporarily under resourced". But I dunno, maybe they're telling the truth.
Ummm what? Kamala was the top prosecutor of the largest state in the US for like 7 years, on top of actually knowing her shit unlike Trump, and being 2 decades younger than him, she would absolutely tear Trump apart in a debate. Trump knows this obviously, which is why he's started avoiding debates and will probably run away from debating until election day.
Then there's the fact that J.D. Vance has been probably the Republicans' worst VP pick in recent history. Nobody likes him, he's uncharismatic and has pretty much no relevant skills. He's already seeing some of the lowest approval ratings of any VP candidate by Republicans. He wouldn't survive a debate against someone like Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear. The good thing here is that Harris can pick out of a lot of people who could humiliate Vance for her VP pick, who also bring with them key swing states.
Trump's campaign is on high alert because they know they have no real defense against a Harris campaign. They're scrambling to find some sort of misleading rhetoric that will stick and run with it as quickly as possible, but right now their entire position is basically just "DEI hire, she's a woman, her parents are foreigners, she was a prosecutor so surely she hates black people almost as much as we do" and they know that isn't going to work for long. The only real thing they really have against her is her pro-Israel position, but it's pretty easy to point out that Republicans are obsessed with Israel too so it's not exactly foolproof.
Of course Trump is having meltdowns. He's a womanizing, racist and anti-immigrant felon running off of anti-queer rhetoric, who hasn't achieved anything as a politician and is now the oldest nominated presidential candidate in American history; up against a young (relative to him) prosecutor who's a mixed-race woman with immigrant parents, who can actually point to major positive things she's done for this country despite having some flawed beliefs being "tough on crime" in her past. Plus she's actually willing to do what Biden (and other politicians) weren't willing to do and actually attack the worst parts of the Republican agenda, including Project 2025. His entire platform is based around his persona and being snappier and more energetic than his opponent, but that's thrown out the window now. He's terrified because what was before an easy election has suddenly and unexpectedly become an uphill battle, and he was thrown in completely unprepared with a shitty VP.
I can't say for sure that Harris will win. But I can say for sure that Trump's mental state is absolutely devolving into despair and anger currently.
4 out of 330 is quite a lot. Are they tech youtubers or something?
Probably the redness from being white as fuck and old, maybe some yellow skin from being old too, and the warm color of the artificial lighting in the Oval Office (2700K to 3000K)
What specific problems does the government cause for this non-profit, exactly? What "authoritarian" policies is this "left" you speak of enacting which harms the needy?
There's no way them deducting pay out of your last paycheck is legal in any way. How hasn't soneone sued the hell out of them?
Is there not a comedygraveyard community on Lemmy?
!comedycemetery@lemmy.blahaj.zone
edit: it's dead
It's a Brtish news article so they actually do pay about that much for insulin, if they pay at all.
Honestly I hate the fact that browsers' default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their "default" CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn't look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser's CSS, and I as a developer shouldn't have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.
Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style...
The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress...
Finnish spelling is very consistent with its phonology. "a" and "u" are pronounced kind of similar to as they are in Italian or Spanish or something, except further back in the mouth. So yes
I'm pretty sure Biden is living on borrowed time now. The only reason for him not to do whatever the hell he wants is to not affect Harris' image.
I mean discouraging voting for her doesn't actually do any good unless we do a revolution or something. I recognize that not voting just threatens the rights of Americans in marginalized/vulnerable groups while doing nothing positive for Palestinians unless you count virtue signaling. Losing security in their votes doesn't make them move leftwards. This isn't going to change even if every leftist in the US refuses to vote blue, we're just a tiny group in comparison to centrists. More people would be leftists if we had actually good education, but...
""Moderates"" are scum of the Earth but we didn't build up to the Civil Rights act by sabotaging the less bad people. We would still have segregation and pretty much no women's rights if we just stopped voting until we had candidates with modern views on sex and race in a fundamentally sexist and racist America. We don't live in a functioning democracy, so you have to make decisions within the framework of a dysfunctional democracy. Democrats, at the very least, decrease disenfranchisement and improve access to education & healthcare (especially for underprivileged groups), so consistently voting for them guarantees we can vote for a better choice in the future. I've already experienced one Trump presidency, and he has far more sinister plans for the next one, so I have no reason to let him win.
Also this is unrelated, but thumb-key is great, you're awesome for doing work on that 👍
I don't think it's comparable because Kenya is probably the US' primary African ally. South Africa and Nigeria are countries with more importance on the world stage, but they both aren't as consistently aligned with the US as Kenya is, and Nigeria's government is very unstable while Kenya is abnormally stable (for Africa). Egypt is very tied to the US in terms of military & foreign policy, but it's not as important to the US as Kenya and South Africa, and it's a corrupt dictatorship that constantly violates human rights so their opinion on our democracy doesn't really matter. The only other countries consistently aligned with the US that are comparable to Kenya are Morocco, Ghana, and Botswana, but Kenya is more critical to US efforts in Africa than them.
Kenya plays an important role in America's presence in Africa while also being relatively democratic and heavily aligned with the US, so I think their opinion matters a lot more than the average nation's.
Skill issue
That's one difficult thing, it can be pretty hard to tell from the outside whether it's the product of grooming or not. The same goes for a lot of very legal types of relationships though, so I don't think the possibility of it happening is a reason to completely criminalize it. The difference compared to the other things listed (children and animals) is those things can't consent, it's an impossibility.
I think enforcing some arbitrary age gap maximum for siblings though would make sense – incest between parents and children should be illegal full stop imo, and it's hard to believe that any relationships between siblings who are 10 years apart isn't from grooming.
That being said, I'm not sure that with our current shitty justice, law, and health system (in the US) that it's worth it to start giving equality to those types of relationships considering we just don't have the infrastructure or society to effectively prevent the legality being used to facilitate grooming. Society is too corrupt to prevent or bring justice for abuse at the scale needed. But people made similar arguments for incest being illegal as for interracial relationships being illegal so maybe I'm wrong.
Fascism in the most vague sense that you can get while still being accurate is enforcement of a hierarchy, practically no social mobility, based on traits like ethnicity, sex, wealth, etc. supposed to be the "natural order" of society; often involving some sort of mythological/religious/idealized "past" or predecessor society/civilization which was then upended by some sort of evil group(s) (the targetted groups/scapegoats), which stole from us and which are an evil that need to be stopped. This, of course, is slightly different from how Mussolini's fascism was originally visualized – which was a corporatist nationalist dictatorship about "might"/the strong coming out on top (translated into militarism) justified by religion/mythology (in fascist Italy's case about being the successor to the great ancient Rome and seeing through to a greater Roman Empire) – but it's how the world has become to understand the concept of fascism as time went on.
This is the reason many see capitalism as sort of "diet fascism" – it's entirely about a hierarchy based around socioeconomic class/groups, with highly restricted social mobility (although not completely closed off as fascism's is), and it's seen that your place in the hierarchy in a hypothetically purely capitalistic system is the natural order of things – your place in the hierarchy is supposedly based on how hard you work, rich people are rich because they've simply worked smarter and harder than the people under them, and anyone can go up the hierarchy if they simply just are a better person. Of course, in reality we know this doesn't work and among other things generational wealth & systematic roadblocks created by the wealthy play a major factor in this hierarchy, but I digress. The reason classical liberalism / free market capitalism hates class equality, hates a system like socialism which calls for abolishing unjust hierarchies, is because it sees the abolition of the socioeconomic/class-based hierarchy as going against the natural order and forcibly placing people in the "wrong" places in the hierarchy (all on the same level) when some people deserve to be below others because they're lazy, illegal immigrants, "criminals", etc. In essence, they see equality not as equality, but as an "upside-down" hierarchy where the former upper class is forced below the formerly marginalized groups; to a more privileged person, equality feels like oppression. Capitalism needs an underclass to function, in a capitalistic system people with certain traits always have an unequal distribution throughout the hierarchy (scapegoated/marginalized groups significantly tending to pool at the bottom with only a few "token" examples truly traversing upwards, and people closer to the top of the pyramid being less and less prone to falling down the hierarchy). It sounds a lot like fascism, because fascism and capitalism are ideologies/systems with loosely equivalent structures but capitalism being far less pronounced.
Additionaly, classical liberalism & moreso conservative capitalism are centered around reggressing to a supposed "golden age" of the past where things were better before "they" ruined it (whoever "they" is and what specifically "they" did is vague and changes from belief to belief but usually includes taxation/redistribution of wealth/power away from the people at the top of the hierarchy, or some shift in the hierarchy). It's like a much less pronounced form of the mythologized predecessor civilization/society of fascism, instead of hundreds or thousands of years ago it's more like 30-40 years ago.
Fascism in the way we currently understand it doesn't even strictly require dictatorial/autocratic rule, it can be enforced in a technically "democratic" system as long as certain groups are excluded from the democratic process. Of course, the line between democracy, broader oligarchy, narrower oligarchy, and autocracy becomes blurrier the more of the population you exclude, since democracy is more of a spectrum than anything, but generally there's a lot of possible fascist systems where people would still consider it democratic enough. Your perspective is pretty deeply tied to which group you belong to as well – the average German thought Nazi Germany was a democracy even when Poland was invaded and throughout much of the war, but obviously the Roma and Jewish populace being genocided would definitely not agree. Capitalism does this exclusion to a large extent too – just usually not in the form of outright completely banning a group from participating – and the upper classes have signficantly more say in the democratic process, to the point where the upper classes can choose to completely eliminate options they collectively dislike enough from the equation regardless of the consent of the lower classes.
Overall while fascism and capitalism aren't a complete overlap, fascism is for the most part a progression of capitalism (or, as more and more people see it, capitalism is a derivation of fascism and/or feudalism where we keep trying to patch up the flaws using a few socialist/progressive/democratic qualities) and pretty much requires a capitalist (or capitalist-adjacent) system to exist. Fascism can't use, say, a socialist system because socialism inherently requires working towards the abolition of the power structures/hierarchies which fascism is based around. Of course, in fascist systems the supposed "superior" class often has power redistributed to them in the form of e.g. social welfare benefits and infrastructure investments, which isn't straight up classical liberalism obviously, but that doesn't necessarily violate capitalism/the capitalist power structures as a whole, it's just using a different form of capitalism in order to keep the currently-not-scapegoated but also-not-highest castes content and thinking that things aren't so bad.
If you have any questions about this or can't see the reasoning of certain parts, I'm sure I (or someone else) will be happy to answer it for you.
Don't talk to me and my Directed Hypergraph Databases again