hotspur

Colder war was what got me interested in him, great short story.

They’re pretty fun little books, fairly unique little setup.

Is that the same Charlie Stross that writes the James-bond-meets-Cthulhu-IT-worker books?

Unless we get a blow-out for either candidate that cannot be challenged, which does not seem likely based on the polls and battle lines, even if we have a Biden-esque victory for Harris, I’m fairly unsure of what will happen next. I personally doubt full on Civil War like in the Garland movie, or the actual civil war, but I would expect all kinds of shitty legal tricks, possible Supreme Court involvement and of course, stochastic and targeted violence, particularly towards immigrants and minorities. In other words, win or lose, I think the US may be in for a bad time. Hopefully I’m working in my assumptions here and it is somewhat more boring.

To better answer your question though, assuming things don’t completely fall apart: the two sides already don’t mix much, which is part of the problem in the first place. We’ll get more govt inaction due to gridlocked congress, probably more defense spending and some states, in the absence of federal legislating, will continue to take a larger role as they have been doing already in the recent era.

So basically more of the same, on a not-great trend line. Something has to give at some point, it’s hard to imagine how you could put the genie back in the bottle now, particularly with overall conditions in the world due to late-stage capitalism and climate change constricting each year.

Bulbasaur has curves, jeep is a series of boxes. So very possibly bulbasaur wins.

Well said-I feel the same.

I mean the real comparison is just: did she get enough votes, in states that Clinton lost, where if those people had all voted for Clinton, then Clinton would have won that state. I don’t know the answer, but even if the numbers did cover the margin, I think saying Stein is therefore a spoiler is problematic for a few reasons:

1. It ignores the very real number of voters who chose not to vote democratic or vote at all simply because of Clinton as candidate.
2. it ignores massive mistakes made by a hubristic campaign that couldn’t fathom losing to trump.
3. it supposes that people that voted green, would have gritted their teeth and instead voted Clinton, which is not a safe assumption.

Regarding OP’s argument: if Stein is a spoiler, than the libertarians are also spoilers. Since her being a spoiler assumes a majority of her votes would have gone democratic, we can take the same liberty and assume the libertarians would have instead opted for trump. If they had larger vote numbers than the Green Party got, as OP is saying above, then they cancel out greens spoiler-ness, and in fact represent a slight spoiler in favor of the democrats. I don’t really buy this read for the reasons I mentioned above, but OP’s point still kinda stands.

I’m not personally interested in voting for stein, I’ve heard enough weird stuff about her over the years that I’m not comfortable with her as a candidate. But I don’t buy the constant messaging that “third party votes are wasted votes”. My assumption with people that post these things is that they’re not suggesting it’s OK to not vote. And assumably, they also don’t want you to vote, but vote for the opposition. So it’s just the same old thing: vote the way I want you to.

Man, I wonder if it’s challenging to source a steady supply of paper for that thing…

Haha at the moment, her car lol. I work from home and she drives to the train station.

I was gonna say “wait until this guy hears my wife and I SHARE a car… oh, the humanity!”

No I didn’t know that, would be interesting to see more of them try it, just for curiositys sake.

It makes me wonder—would the dynamic change if there was only an upvote? So you could choose not to upvote, but the default action would be a neutral one, and if you liked/wanted to support/etc you could signal that.

I see tons of posts on here now that are downvoted to oblivion, because they are a legitimate article that says something a group doesn’t like. There won’t even be comments on the post. So like a Reuter article that discusses Palestinian casualties and no comments and like -20. This doesn’t seem like a super useful mechanism. Or at least, it’s just functioning today as a content preference “I don’t want to see this typed content” as opposed to “this is bad info, out of line with the community, etc.”

And despite ranking my list by either hot, or top day/six hours, I still see the downvoted posts regularly so the mechanic doesn’t even really do anything in terms of visibility. Or possibly there’s just too little content on a given community for it to get filtered out.

I think I missed pirates viiings knights, sad now!

That’s fine and all but I’m technically an elder Millenial, and we definitely played online pvp games when I was in high school. I was there for the first counterstrike alpha/beta. My brother and I spent an entire week playing CS one time while my parents were in a trip, 10 hours a day with breaks for pizza. We had a system for sharing play because we only had the one desktop… lol.

We had quake lan parties and even did a quake tourney in our school computer lab because this was before they really sorted out locking the computers down. I feel like tribes and unreal tournament were out pretty quick as well. Quake arena. Half life multiplayer and then CS, day of defeat, etc.

Super toxic online was sorta a thing, but I feel like that didnt mainstream until COD lobbies on consoles, and the advent of voice chat. Or rather most of the servers I played on were specific servers, hosted by people with admins, and while people would misbehave, you generally wanted to not get banned and keep coming back—you knew the other names and such, so that had an ok moderating effect.

Gotcha so the idea is they’re just gonna give it a shot and try to eat you, regardless, because the stakes, they are high?

To be fair, in a moral sense, they should absolutely try and eat every human they can get their claws on; we have done a bang up job on making their habitat and food sources disappear.

So are polar bears considered more dangerous and aggro than grizzlies? I mean it wouldn’t be too crazy, particularly since it’s probably rare to encounter one, compare to grizzlies. But just had never really heard that.

This is it, I’m pretty sure. I had plenty of brushes with nettles as a kid, but I’m not super aware of them to be able to avoid them as an adult. However I spend less time in high grass and forests, since I need to be present in the spreadsheet factory, and when I do make it into the wild, I usually wear pants and the like to avoid scratches, ticks and poison ivy; so less likely to get nettles.

Side note: we bought some nettles from a local farm last year and made a couple dishes with them. Pretty tasty, if you already like tho ha like spinach or mustard greens (think saag paneer)