circuitfarmer

I am saying that you (and people like you) can't keep doing the same thing and expect shit to change, and then put down people who are actually trying something different for once.

Not voting or voting third party is not new. It's not "for once". It has been tried again and again in the US, and again and again, the outcomes were as expected: whichever candidate between the two main parties loses more votes to the tactic, loses the election.

Stop pretending it's novel. It isn't, and it always fails. There is nothing virtuous about being shown evidence and denying it. That's called stupidity.

You literally had a whole thread about AI slop that wasn't there and now you're trying to save face by changing your own goalposts.

Good chat.

What slop? You think a nearly 3-year old account is AI generated?

Just because you've never seen an em-dash before AI doesn't mean that em-dash = AI. And btw, I never even used one.

Keep showing Democrats that no matter how disconnected they are from the American public, you will keep voting for them.

The US has a two-party system. Period. That will not change anytime soon, if ever. And that presents unique challenges that countries with different systems do not have.

I'm not entirely sure from your rebuttal that you actually understand this fact.

I don't disagree that things are fucked up, and I don't disagree that the Dems are a bad party which by and large do not support their constituents. But let me be clear: there is no path outside of voting Democrat that has any chance of success of changing anything in the US. The only path forward is voting for the single opposition party.

What you're saying is: it won't matter anyway. Maybe you're right. I'm also not disagreeing there. But we know from evidence that there is no other option which has any chance. And if the whole house of cards falls -- as it is likely to do -- I'd certainly rather tell my children that I did what I could based on an evidential position, regardless of how futile it may have ended up being.

What I won't do is pretend that a third party vote will help. I won't pretend that not voting will help. Those are the farcical ideas of a naïve idealist.

There are literal fascists in office, in part because Dunning-Kruger told you not voting or voting for a no-chance candidate was a good idea.

Or maybe you think posting online is "action" or "protest". In case you haven't noticed, it does jack shit.

I am not prepared

Don't worry. We know.

You're welcome to respond to the "slop comment" if you can actually come up with something substantive. Otherwise, it's not a good look.

I'm really curious if there is a planned review of Samsung's changes here. It seems awfully easy to change the TOS and claim changes were made while just continuing business as usual (yes, this is contradictory to the court order, but would it matter?). Samsung likely has already calculated how much money it would cost to do it that way (i.e. probable costs of fines, if caught) in comparison with how much money the whole endeavor takes in.

They could have barred Samsung from selling TVs in the state until a third party reviewer signs off on their changes. But that would mean handing an actual consequence to a corporation, and of all states, it's definitely not happening in Texas.

Back in the day, Sonic 2 on Genesis/Megadrive allowed player 2 to be Tails. Tails flies around but is mostly extraneous since player 1 can do everything with Sonic alone. Tails can also get left behind and never dies.

Player 2 always feels like they're doing something, even if it isn't clear what that is.

It was peak singlemultiplayer.

And they're sure to get less attention since now we have a brand new war.

This.

Not voting or voting for a third party hands a win to people you don't want winning. The system is not fair, at all -- but that doesn't mean we should operate in a way we know will lead to a bad outcome. We have plenty of evidence that third parties in the US don't really make a dent, but they do sway elections (and generally not how you want). The rest is idealism.

It's also a good example of why single-issue voting means you'll almost always get more collateral damage, even if you get representation you want on that specific issue.

AFAIK, the answer to this is yes: GPS is private because the device seeking a lock is not transmitting anything.

Satellites transmit continuous signals which are received by your device. These signals contain data about the position of the satellite and precise timekeeping metadata. Figuring out your location is a matter of comparing time of receipt to the time reported in the signal (and other similar stuff, still all reception based).

This is also why it doesn't shut off for airplane mode. Nothing is being transmitted by your device to perform the lock; it must only receive enough data.