I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. We’re not even on the same page in terms of first principles. A voter voting blue in a red state is voting for a candidate who literally cannot win, and by your logic they’d be an idiot too. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. People should be able to vote how they want—especially if their vote isn’t likely to sway the election.
Not to mention these idiots could live in a state that’s blue but not solidly blue and that state could possibly flip red because they assumed blue was safe in their state.
That’s why I used the word “solidly.”
Do you think non-voters and 3rd party presidential voters are smart enough to keep an eye on that kind of thing?
Some of them? Sure. Maybe not all of them. But it doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion. I was just making the claim that your math was including some voters that had no possible effect on Trump getting elected. And I still think that’s the case whether or not a number of people in purple states decided not to vote because Harris didn’t really speak to the economic realities they face everyday. Now we’re just quibbling over how wrong your math is.
To your broader point about the popular vote: I agree that people not voting or voting 3rd party impacts the popular vote, and the popular vote is indeed often used as a proxy for a national mandate. But Trump didn’t even break 50% on the popular vote—hardly a Reagan-style sweeping mandate despite initial reports to the contrary. So in this particular election, your point doesn’t even come into play. You’re calling people idiots for how they voted because of a theoretical outcome that didn’t occur.
Yes, voting in the U.S. is basically harm reduction. But what’s the point of voting to reduce harm if it doesn’t actually have much chance of doing that in your state? To be clear, I’m not advocating not voting. I’m advocating giving people a little grace if, via their vote, they didn’t materially contribute to the rise of fascism or whatever. In fact, you could say that someone voting third party in a solidly blue state has just as much impact on the election as someone voting blue in a solidly red one. It’s just numbers.
It’s marketing, but it’s also the value proposition. Average Joes don’t see the value in decentralization, privacy, or the freedom from corporate control. Although that may change under an authoritarian regime…
I don’t think your math quite works out. Voters who voted third party or didn’t vote and live in solidly blue states had no bearing on Trump’s election.
Try parchment paper.
Dude, you got the words wrong too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Mangione (See “Alleged Role …”.)
(EDIT: The parent comment now has the correct words!)
In your defense, the cops initially reported the words from the bullet casings incorrectly before later making a correction. And half the media has been confused about it ever since.
Makes sense, given that Oregon was founded as a “whites only” state.
You are right about human nature and the need to regulate, but us voters didn’t build shit. Crony capitalism and regulatory capture built our healthcare “system.”
I went down this very same twisty road a while back with rootless Podman. I tried several of the solutions you mentioned. None of them worked. The actual working solution I finally settled on was using Proxy Protocol to pass the original client IP from the host into a container. In my particular case, I’m running a very basic HAProxy config on the host that’s talking Proxy Protocol to Traefik running in a container. And it works great; actual client IPs show up in the logs as expected.
In your particular case, you could probably run HAProxy on the host and have that talk Proxy Protocol to Caddy running in a container.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble here, but jury nullification sounds pretty unlikely in New York in this particular case according to a NY defense attorney familiar with the type of jurors there: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-luigi-mangione-case-a-ny-defense-attorney-breaks-it-down/id1147092464?i=1000680245949
If it was by choice, then they wouldn’t be a monarch. :D
I know, rite??
Probably because nobody uses RSS. Or websites.
Toeing the line? They’re going well beyond that. Have you read the BBC’s finger-wagging admonishment of the poors / puff piece for United Health?
Historically we can change zero big things at a time. But I agree with you. Our rate of change has got to change. (Mathematics/physics joke goes here.)
I think the point is that hexane is commonly used to extract seed oils, the subject of this thread.
Because the initial startup push is a time-limited effort. Once the company is more established and the risk is lower, why should a founder get to continue reaping outsize rewards off the backs of others’ labor… indefinitely? Surely there comes a point when their initial risk and effort becomes fully repaid and the founder has been made whole.
Yes. No transcoding, but that’s actually a feature as far as I’m concerned.