Another idiot might come along, but cults of personality like Trump’s are rare. For whatever reason, idiots love Trump the way they haven’t loved anybody since Hitler. Even with Reagan it wasn’t this blind devotion.
Just look at how much infighting there was in the GOP before Trump came along. If he were gone, that would come back and they’d be tearing themselves apart again.
You need a Jimmy Carter.
I still have some hope that if there is an overwhelming support for democrats in the midterms, crisis might be averted. It will have to be overwhelming support, because the GOP are going to play every dirty trick possible to cancel elections, jail candidates, etc.
If that happens, impeachment and removal actually becomes possible. And, even if he isn’t impeached, a democrat controlled could reassert their power and take his away. After all, these “executive orders” he keeps issuing are nothing more than memos from a boss to his subordinates about how he wants an agency to be run. They don’t have the force of laws, laws are exclusively within the authority of the legislature.
OTOH, I think the US is a profoundly sick country, and despite everything Trump still have a huge base of support, so a massive, overwhelming election for democrats is just about impossible.
What exactly do you mean by “news is censored”? Are you saying that certain stories aren’t getting the kinds of traction you think they should be getting? Or, are you saying that major events are not being covered at all because the government is threatening news organizations that cover them?
It’s not so much that the tech just worked. Often it doesn’t work. The difference is that when it doesn’t work it’s not user-serviceable. Up until maybe 2010 or so, when things broke there was often something a user could do to fix them. But, especially with the introduction of locked-down mobile phone OSes, that’s not true anymore. Now it’s just “wait for an update”.
Some can’t. Computers weren’t commonplace until many GenXers were in their 20s, so some never learned. Those that did learn often learned the deep magic.
Silly millennial, even Boomers were using regexen in the 70s, and they were commonplace by the time GenX nerds started playing with them in the 80s and 90s. Your elders also know that regexen are fun but extremely dangerous, and should only be used in cases where they won’t make things much worse.
Write machine code? For what kind of processor?
That is one ability that doesn’t really belong. That’s much more of a Boomer thing. Not all boomers, obviously, but the ones who were computer experts were the ones who had to learn machine code. By the time even Gen X came along, assembler and C were already much more common.
While there’s a lot of disagreement on where bands belong, I think Rage Against the Machine as the pinnacle of Angry Music is one we can all agree with.
I’m not sure Cake qualifies.
That monitor was really underrated. I used it for decades for game consoles, VCRs, etc. after the C64 went obsolete.
I’m old enough to know why people used pencils for cassettes. It wasn’t coincidence. Count the number of teeth in the casette, then look at the number of facets on a standard pencil.
It needs a lot more people and lines connecting to the centralize services, like 6+. You have 14 dudes in the fediverse, you should have a similar number of dudes in the traditional centralized social media things. You need to make it clear that every connection between two people goes through that central server. With only 3 or 4 it looks like it’s some kind of small community there, like you’re just saying “communities exist on Facebook” rather than “on Facebook everybody connects to one central Facebook service”. It would also be good to draw a black line around the edge of the bubble to indicate it’s a walled garden rather than an open system.
For the Fediverse example, it would be good to have a slightly darker shaded bubble with people around their local fediverse instance. That would indicate that there are local communities, but that they can still communicate with all the other communities. And, maybe show that people can be part of different communities, show one person connected both to a mastodon instance and a Lemmy instance.
Edit: I just thought of something else to make it clearer. On the centralized networks you could also make a darker group of people who are a community on say Facebook, but show that that community has to connect to each-other through the central server.
You think he’ll become a ballet dancer?
If nominative determinism is a real thing, WTF does that mean for X AE A-XII?
One of the biggest failings with a lot of idealist political systems (anarchism, libertarianism, communism, etc.) is that they try to do away with hierarchies and bosses. But, those are inevitable for great apes. A good setup provides a way to limit and manage the bosses that will inevitably appear. Yes, it legitimizes their power, but by acknowledging it, it also provides a way to limit it.
Or they’re so used to their privilege that they don’t understand how protected they are by society.
The basic principle of libertarianism is appealing: mind your own damn business and I’ll mind mine. And I still agree with that in general — it’s just that a single generality does not make a complete worldview
The problem is obviously that nobody lives in isolation. Everyone takes actions which impact other people.
If there are going to be laws, then the government needs a police force and a judiciary that are big enough to enforce those laws. If there are going to be companies, the government has to be bigger than the biggest company, otherwise it won’t be able to effectively enforce anything. The bigger the biggest company gets, the bigger the government has to be in order to be able to enforce the laws. But, big government is antithetical to the libertarian philosophy. If you want to limit the size of the government but still want government to be able to enforce laws, you need to limit the size of companies. But that’s a regulation, and government regulations are antithetical to the ideas of libertarianism.
Arguing for the idea that the government should generally let people mind their own business as long as nobody is getting hurt, or that consenting adults are knowingly and willingly consenting to being hurt, that’s fine. Same with the idea that regulations shouldn’t be overly burdensome. There’s always going to have to be a line drawn somewhere, but it’s fine if you tend to want that line to be drawn in a way that allows for more freedom vs. more babysitting by the government.
The ridiculous bit is when libertarians try to argue that some extreme form of libertarianism is possible. Anarchy is certainly possible, but it isn’t something that most people, even libertarians, think is a great plan.
I only see one downvote, but thanks for saying that.
Liberty in the USA, which hasn’t been all that libertyish for a while. It’s doing fine elsewhere.