I have a good friend that is a cardiologist in the air force. Joined the military when he got into med school to cover his tuition and the get guaranteed residency. He’s never been deployed over seas, never been in a war area, and never designed a process or item that has led to an indirect killing. An exception could be if he saved someone that went back to kill someone, but that would be true for all doctors military or not, so that’s not a valid comparison.

There are many military jobs that are simple office jobs like accounting. Not everyone of them is linked to battle.

If you think these more mundane jobs indirectly lead to military related casualties, you better start hating on your local grocery store, because odds are they have given supplies to a soldier that eventually indirectly killed someone. Or probably any public service a soldier could use, because indirectly, that may help the soldier kill someone.

Legally it’s the Gulf of Mexico. This is one of those hills I will die on where I will never call it the Gulf of America. Fortunately for me it never comes up, but if I were a student and was taught the wrong thing, I would correct the teacher and never fall in line. There’s right and wrong, and Gulf of America is factually wrong.

To no effect if the last checks notes 250 years or US foreign policy are any indication.

As you clearly said in your comment, 250 years or US foreign policy.

There have also been a couple of world wars that the US has assisted in in the past 250 years that I would consider success stories, it wasn’t just Vietnam and Iraq.

Are you suggesting the news should just bury it instead?

Clearly you didn’t check your notes very well if you think there’s been nothing significant achieved by American citizens against the government over the past 250 years. It’s fun to dunk on the US these days, but you should at least make valid criticisms.

It doesn’t matter what they said or pushed for. There were two known commodities, Kamala and Trump, one of them was going to win. Everyone knew what Trump would do. Whether Kamala would have done anything to improve the situation overseas is an unknown, but I guarantee there was a better chance of positive change had she won.

Anyone that based their voting off of the DNC instead of their own eyes, again, is an idiot.

This is a matter of statistics. Statistically, what I’m saying is a fact. You don’t have to like it, but voters and non voters decided the election, not the DNC. The DNC sucks, but they didn’t cast votes for Trump and didn’t sit out the election. They carry blame for dissuading voters, but it’s still all comes back to those voters. The DNC could have said probably anything, and it shouldn’t have mattered because it was still Kamala v Trump. Anyone that didn’t vote because of the words of a bunch of old fools when the candidates were right there to see, is an idiot.

Yea, I saw that after processing the comment. Still, I want people that may be unaware and read the comment chain to understand the reality. Silence is complacency.

No it’s fact. Not voting supports the less good candidate 100% of the time in FPtP.

And yes, non voters are more responsible for this than the DNC sending a shit message. If non voters and third party voted Kamala, we wouldn’t have a dictator in the White house right now. The DNC didn’t put him there, voters for Trump and non voters did.

The people that voted for Trump are first to blame. People that didn’t vote are second. It’s that simple. There are reasons why a person may have decided not to vote, but none of them change that fact that not voting was effectively a vote for Trump. I view non voters a small step above Trump voters. They at least have the same level of intelligence and critical thinking skills as one another.

I would guess that the majority of the 50% of non voters willingly didn’t vote, but some of that 50%, other than the previously mentioned exceptions, maybe couldn’t due to disenfranchisement from purging voter roles, or since it’s not a government holiday, maybe couldn’t leave work to vote. I believe legally it has to be allowed, but we all know that doesn’t mean that it always is, and some people work a distance from their voting station. For example, I travel an hour for work on Wednesdays, stay remote, then drive back home Thursday evening. If that happened to be on a voting day where early voting isn’t possible, that could disqualify me, or at least make it really difficult to vote.

But as mentioned, I think the majority is due to apathy or ignorance, willful or not.

Probably that too, but specifically the ability to spin up a private space to communicate with people for things like video games. Anyone that’s using it as their means of customer service is an idiot.

Apparently I struck a chord with my post, so I’m curious what is better than discord, and free that made my statement controversial?

Also, I don’t see locking data from search engines as a bad thing. The fediverse isn’t search engine searchable either and Google, bing, etc, don’t natively have the right to index private data.

It’s the best at what it does, but had been getting shitty in the way you described. However, it’s free and they have to support it somehow. I’ll put up with the nitro pushing and understand that’s my cost of doing business. If they go public, I’ll probably actively start looking for an alternative, because that always kills a product and it will for sure mean “AI” will be forced into it.