I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
thoughtful people
There’s your problem right there
When I have it integrated into my development environment a la Copilot, predicting the next block of code I’m going to write (which I can use if it is relevant and ignore if not), I find it to be a huge timesaver.
If they are non-assholes then they should be glad you made them aware
If “literally” means “figuratively,” then we literally have no word for “literally.”
It’s worth pointing out that you just used the word for “literally” and we knew which sense of the word you meant through context. Just like the verb “dust” can mean to put a layer of small particles on something but can also mean to remove the small particles from something. Humans are able to sort these things out.
However, one of the best things about language is that if a need actually arises for more clarity about “literalness”, a solution will naturally emerge to address it.
Even the word “literal” started out as a word that pertained specifically to the written word, and scholarly things, and its sense evolved to refer to things not necessarily written down, to the present meaning of “the most straightforward interpretation of what I’m saying”. A need arose and a word filled the need.
I’ve always wondered why so many people have this reaction, rather than seeing it as a cool thing that languages can do. Namely, taking bits from other languages and making them into something new.
It’s because the two-party system is a systemic problem. Our winner-take-all voting system always punishes similar candidates, so if similar groups don’t form a coalition and choose a single candidate to run for them, they will cannibalize each other and surely lose. So, you inevitably end up with two parties each representing all the factions on one side of the spectrum.
As a result, anybody on the national level who decides to run as a third party candidate (a) doesn’t understand our voting system, (b) is just doing it for the publicity, or © is out of their mind.
If we had a different voting system that did not punish similar candidates (like ranked choice), not only would quality third parties be possible, they would be inevitable.
I don’t know if this is true everywhere, but I can say my elementary school kid and friends all say “search it up”, and although they have school-issued Chromebooks and use Google for search, I can’t actually recall ever hearing them say “google it”.
Except more disgusting
She skipped Netanyahu’s speech in protest and called for an end to the war afterwards.
“The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time. We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent,” Harris said.
The reports [from Israeli media] appear to reflect worries among Netanyahu’s inner circle that the emergence of Harris as the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate might herald a tougher US line on the conduct of Israel’s war with Hamas.
I’m not in any way arguing that she’s doing everything right on this issue. I think she should go more strongly, although I can also acknowledge that someone at this level is walking a tightrope.
However, if anything, her choice to skip the speech in protest associates her with the protest going on outside, and so she went out of her way to separate herself from the actions at the protest that went too far.
You can argue over whether or not some protesters did go too far, or what else she could say and do that would actually help and be effective, I’m just asking for people to strive for accuracy when making claims. This is an important election, in which I genuinely believe that Harris winning the election will lead to a better outcome for Palestinians than any other outcome. I want to be vigilant about what she says but I also don’t want to look for some excuse to paint her with the same brush as everyone else and write her off.
I wasn’t in anyway even trying to imply that these actions weren’t carried out by protesters. That wasn’t the point I was making. Can’t you see the difference between “I think it was wrong to do XYZ at the protest” and “I don’t think there should be a protest”?
I just watched the video and it didn’t say she denounced the protesters, it said she was one of the officials who strongly condemned the graffiti, flag burning, and raising the Palestinian flag. Specifically those actions. Not the protesters themselves or the fact that they were protesting at all.
If your statement was based on that segment alone, then I would say you mischaracterized the situation in a way that makes Harris come off worse.
Source?
I spelled “capitol” instead of “capital” in my elementary school spelling bee and I’m still bitter about it
I’ve been saying for years that the movie franchise should have been called Uncle Ben feat. Spider-Man
There are a thousand things more important, and yet our country managed to have a streak of electing only men for hundreds of years, despite the fact that there have always been just as many women in the country. It shouldn’t matter, but it does.
It makes perfect sense if you don’t think about it
While I agree that it would certainly be ideal if a speed limiter could account for the context that the car is in, you’ve missed a lot in drawing your conclusion that it would be useless without being able to do that.
Hitting a pedestrian is not the only type of accident. If you rear end a car going 25 mph at 70mph it is not a guaranteed death sentence for all. Especially if the driver brakes, which some do not, but some will. And this is ignoring cases where there isn’t a tremendous mismatch in speed. Like, even if it reduced residential deaths by 0% but it reduced overall deaths looking at all situations, it would be a net gain with literally nothing lost. We are looking at the aggregate here. So, it isn’t relevant if you think of one specific situation where you believe 70mph isn’t better than 90mph or whatever number.
Reaction time and braking distance are affected by speed. In some cases, the person going 70 might be able to slow down enough to have the collision be non-fatal. Reaction time goes down and braking distance goes up as speed increases. If a speed limiter gives just enough time to occasionally make an accident non-fatal, then in the aggregate you have fewer fatal accidents.
In fact, taking braking distance into account, I don’t think you can even say that over the millions of miles driven, that a speed maxed at 70mph isn’t going to, occasionally, lead to a situation in a residential area where someone was able to just get out of the way in time because the car covered 30% less distance between the time the pedestrian reacted and the time the car reached that spot (or an even larger difference if the driver noticed and braked at some point as well). But again, it doesn’t matter if it’s few to none in this specific scenario, because a speed limiter of 70 will certainly reduce fatalities overall.
You can certainly kill someone going the maximum legal speed in a place where the speed limit is much lower. But the likelihood of injury and death still does increase with the increase in speed. So if, say, 5% of accidents involving someone going 70 are fatal, but 10% if the person is going 90 (these are made-up numbers), then if cars are not even able to go above 70, you end up saving lives.
https://theonion.com/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades-1819584036/