To your last point, you're dead wrong. I'm not whipped into anything, but thanks for the personal attack (not just on me, but on the gestures broadly "y'all") with zero basis. That's not Beehaw etiquette.
I'm far to the left of the current U.S. Overton window, so being cast as aligned with neoliberalism is laughable. As far as I can tell, your argument is that everyone for whom Gaza isn't their only deciding factor in a U.S. election supports genocide. That's certainly an opinion.
If you don't care about any dead child above 17,000, you've made a fine argument. But now you're saying more deaths is fine (and better than current policy) because you've reached some tipping point where more suffering and death is actually preferable to ... what? A Democrat in the White House? Your logic doesn't work within your own argument.
This is very common among single-issue voters. As another example: abortion. Plenty of people who think Trump is heinous vote for him based on that issue alone (something the GOP has been using to great effect for the past 30 years), and accept whatever else his cronies get him to enact because they perceive him as "wanting to get rid of abortion."
If your think the suffering of Palestinians is the greatest domestic issue facing the U.S., dwarfing all others combined, by all means let it guide your choice. But don't complain about the internment camps that start getting built if Trump wins when you found everything else in this election irrelevant.
Six hundred Nader votes in Florida going to Gore instead 24 years ago would have put this country on a very different trajectory, so it is not hyperbole that staying home or voting for the other guy can result in an even worse outcome.
And that's as clear as she got the whole time. As least she was answering the question asked in that case.
(As to single-issue Gaza voters, I get it in the "had a close friend who was Palestinian in my 20s" sense, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians. Somehow suggesting she's the worse choice in this race on that issue alone isn't even true, regardless of the larger picture. That's not politics or conjecture.)
You have to admit, making them self-replicating would be pretty cool ... for a time.
I'm sorry, but this whole "it's unfair to deny kids the use of personal technology in class" is darkly hilarious to me. I did, in fact, try coding on my TI-85 in English class because I was bored, and it was immediately taken. Why is a phone more acceptable?
It wouldn't have been taken if left in my backpack, so any "well, what about an emergency?" arguments are disingenuous. Put your phone on silent; refrain from using it. This is not phone time. In an emergency, parents calling the school was effective with primitive '90s technology. Surely, they can still do that now.
Excuse me; I need to go yell at a cloud.
The error in this hed is using "could" sted "will." Target a subset of the population, everyone is affected -- and pretty much everyone I know is part of a family.
So long as one gets off the couch! 🤣
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The idea here is replacing solar usage with kinetic energy in certain applications so fewer devices need an external power source and therefore wiring. It would also reduce grid use (by a minuscule amount), but I'm assuming the solar comparison is solely because both produce a DC current.
Oh, the irony that enshittification has led to not trusting online tech firms to sell tech items online.
This. It's not well-advertised in KDE -- I accidentally discovered it through a key combo -- but it was good enough (i.e., Win 11-level) in KDE 5 to make the switch painless on desktop. Where both have issues is apps insisting there are arbitrary dimensional minimums for functionality and refusing to adhere to positioning. This is most egregious in messaging programs.
The only surprising data point I'm seeing is that 55% of self-described Trump supporters agree that "[r]eligion should be kept separate from government policies" -- and yet the GOP is running on a platform of establishing a nondemocratic theocracy.
Thanks for the explanation and apology. No harm done ... using the second person when talking about contentious issues can be pretty fraught, so I just wanted to let you know how I received it.