brianary

Cute.

I don't think that degree of optimism is justified.

My notes on this are a little old, but:

No VRA protections, voter purges/caging (Crosscheck), targeted disenfranchisement & gerrymandering, insecure/unauditable voting machines, undermined census, and gaming the electoral college, all impact the fairness of our elections, on top of the naive first-past-the-post implementation.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/20/this-anti-voter-fraud-program-gets-it-wrong-over-99-of-the-time-the-gop-wants-to-take-it-nationwide/
• https://capitolfax.com/2017/10/13/dem-house-members-want-state-to-withdraw-from-flawed-national-voter-registration-crosscheck-system/
• https://capitolfax.com/2017/10/19/accidental-and-apparently-harmless-password-leak-could-prompt-move-away-from-crosscheck-program/
• http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article184229328.html
• https://www.thenation.com/article/house-republicans-just-voted-to-eliminate-the-only-federal-agency-that-makes-sure-voting-machines-cant-be-hacked/
• https://apnews.com/af2f0ede054d8baebbe1bb6ca47b4895
• https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/09/rnc-ballot-security-consent-decree-328995

It depends, up to four works for some apps depending on monitor size, but otherwise I do the same thing as @Nibodhika@lemmy.world.

Overlapping window managers, the most common type in use by far, just seem crazy to me. Windows almost never use the available monitor space, and they have to constantly be wrangled around each other so that… you can drag something instead of using the clipboard, I guess?

You don't usually have them all open at the same time, you minimize some. Or maybe you add more monitors.

Thanks for digging into that!

Corvair, Gremlin, Concord, …

Do you have any references for this? I only ask because "cities are dangerous shitholes" has been a talking point of reactionaries for a long time.

So much this. Car noise is a huge problem.

I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense.

You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication.

Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!

If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?

There's a lot of hope being pinned on the probably uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator being questioned by agents of a prime suspect. I have a hard time seeing either side accepting anything that comes out of it.

So you didn't read it either? Interesting.