tburkhol

Eh. Sounds like the queer version of a "the only moral abortion is my abortion" pro-lifer. It's kind of a thing over there.

Whatever else comes out of the 2020s, I like that the era of 'superpowers' is pretty clearly over. The former Soviet Union can't bring one of its former soviets back into the fold. The USA can't get a regional power to roll over.

I hope that means a lot more coalition building among the regional powers. Actual compromise and consensus among people with different perspectives. I hope that means less kowtowing to Washington, Moscow, maybe even Beijing, because letting one nation tell the rest of the world what to do just sucks. We can get a lot more done working together than following a bully.

As an American, if that means giving up the global privilege I've had, being the 'default currency,' the 'default language,' and the 'default rule,' then I'll suffer through it. Maybe it will even help us focus on fixing our domestic problems as they grow to crisis proportions.

Beyond "whomever holds the highest office at the moment," there's "whomever gets the biggest media coverage." That might be Gavin Newsom, who's not very popular, even in his home state. Bernie Sanders and AOC always get good coverage, but that's partly because they're so far outside the mainstream.

US isn't really set up for singular leaders at the national level, which is part of what makes Trump so unusual.

I said I understand the argument. You can rage at how the people got on the tracks and look for the real culprits all day, but while you're 'solving' the big problem, people die who didn't have to.

How about the Blade Runner question: You come across a tortoise on its back, belly baking in the hot sun: do you flip the tortoise on its feet or worry who flipped it on its back while you watch it die?

I think these are the people who choose "Do nothing" on the 5-v-1 trolley problem. i.e.: they would rather let 5 people die than take an active role in killing one. I can understand the moral argument, but it really does make for objectively poor outcomes.

I'm trying to imagine Mohammad bin Salman or Kim Ju Ae going on a "re-elect President Trump" tour of the US. I can't imagine it would be received well by either party. Can't imagine why JD thinks this is a good idea. Maybe I'm just not that good at imagining.

My sense is that a lot of the people who say, “Well, I never had that, so why should others?” fail to recognize or remember the kindnesses and support they did receive. i.e.: they'll also say, "I grew up the child of a single mom on welfare - no one gave us anything." There's a specific right-winger I'm thinking of, but I can't remember his name.

I hope you can see where, in the current political climate, questions like "Should 2-child policy be a thing?" "Should transgenders use the gender assigned at birth?" or "Should immigrants be immediately returned to their country of origin?" might seem disingenuous to the populations affected by those very real policy proposals.

Yup. People are people, and the worst of them seem to be very loud about being awful. Any community is going to feel more toxic as it grows, but federation (theoretically) lets you keep your community as small as you like.

Congratulations.Every step helps, and it sucks that your family can't cheer on your victories. So, one internet stranger to another: good job, stay strong, work on that mortgage. Life is better without the sword of debt hanging over your head.

From a non-lawyer perspective, it is not yet clear how such regulations apply to a non-commercial, volunteer-driven project like Debian, which does not sell software and provides it in a highly decentralized way. It seems plausible that obligations, if any, may primarily affect redistributors or commercial entities building products on top of Debian. In such cases, Debian would as usual be open to contributions that help downstreams meet their requirements, while keeping such features optional and respecting the needs of users in other jurisdictions. However, this is an area where proper legal analysis is still required.

I found this part very reassuring. Being neither a lawyer nor having read any of the legislation (of which I am not a subject, anyway), the "it's not our job" approach seems very reasonable. Facilitating downstream vendors who do want/have to comply seems like an exceptional effort to show good faith to local legal processes, while remaining, fundamentally, just people freely sharing knowledge.

I hope their lawyers can make that work.

That may not be PWM. My (cheap) induction cooker seems to do actual high frequency PWM at medium-to-high settings, where the heat is essentially always on, but varies total power. It seems to cycle at lower power settings, with multiple-seconds of on and off. "3" is always on; "2" is 5 seconds heat + 10 seconds off. No clue why it would switch modes like that. I'd assume it's a manufacturing cost, but it means they had to implement both PWM and slow cycles.