I know I used to see a fairly clear picture of myself on Google Street View when it came out. It was later slightly blurred out even though it wasn’t the latest one when when I checked through the timeline.

Computer memory (RAM)

The main blocker for me is the siloed nature of PeerTube servers.

There are two or three active channels on video.canadiancivil.com I like to peruse, but there’s not a reliable way I can find train, public transport and urbanism content outside of that server on Peertube. I’d like to be able to create my own Peertube identity without my own single user server so I can make my own subscription feed across the fedi-video-verse, but Peertube account signups are notoriously limited. In a couple months I might have the tools to set up my own, we’ll see.

The other thing is music: YouTube has original studio versions, concert performances, karaoke versions, remixes and covers of nearly every popular song in existence, I don’t think PeerTube could ever compete on that. So, being realistic, at least in the first category I would like to see more improvement.

Shawty got low low low low blood sugar levels.

I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I’m responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.

The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.

I agree about the vassal state status would be the same under any president. The point is though, USA’s ill treatment of those states hurt a major source of the USA’s own soft and hard power and that is the difference between the two as President. You may say losing that power is better, well that’s great, I’m glad you are getting what you want from Trump.

Even accepting the premise Harris would have to wage a war with Iran because of the adversarial rhetoric, it wouldn’t be waged this illegally, and it wouldn’t be waged alone, with no regard for human life anywhere, on-again-off-again, which I argue would be less harmful for everybody. Trump did wage a 12 day bombing campaign in addition to this year’s fighting. It might be plausible that Harris would find herself leading a similar in-n-out air campaign and that being the end of it. But most things are plausible, you and I can speculate. Going against Iran twice within the span a year, unprompted, just seems improbable to me. Iran has a vote in this too, and their response in closing the Hormuz Strait, having little left to lose, is part of why this is dragging on. In the large majority of potential outcomes, most of them NOT engaging in needless wars, I think the world would be better off under Harris, but you are most welcome to disagree.

Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.

You’re taking the part where I’m being charitable and accepting the other person’s (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.

I can respect your position on that screwing up a war hard to create a deterrent and disincentive, it’s an interesting one. To me that (and arguments that he’s done more to reduce oil consumption than any environmental activist) are silver linings than reasons to direct your vote on the future one way or another.

We had an international coalition going into Afghanistan

As a Canadian, “my country” got involved there but we got burnt pretty bad I’d say, whatever the result was.

I’d rather see no war, despite Harris labelling Iran as the greatest adversary, I still don’t think it’s forgone conclusion that Harris would start a war, but I’ll assume she does for the sake of steelmanning your argument. I’m not a time traveler so I can only speculate the alternatives, but Trump instigated war not just once but twice with Iran. He’s giving American money away to dictators and allowing right wing propaganda campaigns to foment. He’s done nothing to help suffering Iranians, if Harris were to involve the US militarily, she would at least provide some forms of aid to try to mitigate the regime’s massacaring people and restore communication between people stuck their and the worldwide Iranian diaspora. It’s even hard for me to speculate how long a Harris-initiated war would be, but there would definitely be a stronger push to come to a nuclear deal quicker rather than this on-off style untrustworthy negotiation with Trump, and unlike him Harris would care about any unsanctioned action getting approval from Congress, which if it is ®-controlled would keep a short leash within the War Powers Act.

So overall, I will still push back on the argument that always springs up around American election-time that Harris/Dems will be equally bad therefore don’t vote, but I’ll entertain a nuanced argument that one supports a thing Trump did, intentional or not, over a at least somewhat hypothetical action Harris might take.

One could possibly imagine turning a blind eye to Palestinian suffering coupled with nice sounding words of sympathy, but there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran. Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran, she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric, that most nations would provide the USA some token support which would keep it from being as disastrous for the USA as it is.

I have to say Trump is a fairly unique distillation of every aspect of American society that Americans don’t like to admit they have. He has plenty of vain, self-serving sycophants under him that could take his place, but I will say there are very few who have the same mix of incompetence, shamelessness and charisma draw for a certain populace.

Not sure when this map is from, but Grand Forks, MN has one, and the map didn’t count any just across the border in Canada.

As a general point the judge would agree with what you wrote.

“These reasons and judgment should not be viewed, however, as any kind of blanket determination that a transgender or gender-diverse inmate who is designated as a [dangerous offender] cannot be transferred to an institution that aligns with their gender identity, and that may happen eventually for Ms. Cooper. Each such case will depend on their unique circumstances.”

Just in this specific circumstance, and at this point in time, the judge assessed and ruled accordingly in this case. My focus of this comment is not to debate the case (your argument has merit) but to highlight the difference in care for the rights of both parties in a similar Canadian trial, though of course not everybody got what they wanted. In the American case, even the states’ lawyers were scratching their heads with the unprompted bigotry coming from the judges out of left field.

There do exist unique cases (in Canada) where I think it is justified to keep specific trans women out of female prisons, if a pattern of criminal sexual behvaiour towards women is established. I encourage you to read that article as yet another example of Canadian judges taking their job way more seriously than these nutcase Federalist Society judges. They appear to be out to make a point instead of studying the arguments, precedent in law and assessing the trial court’s judgement on a legal and constitutional basis rather than a partisan one.

An awards ceremony thread will be coming in October, dw I haven’t forgotten about the promised prize

Yeah, all I’m hearing from that statement is, “where are all my gratuities?”

Yep. Same guy said managers will ask why they can’t use AI for that job. It seems that he has answered that hypothetical question here.

Yes. I have had my owned changed as well.

In my encounters it’s more often that a counter argument to what I say is not wrong either. When a morsel of nuance can be introduced, we can understand each others’ argument without necessarily having anyone flip around their opinion to the opposite.

However I have tried sometimes to no avail, if there’s no progress after around 3 back-and-forths I end the conversation.

If you want some advice to increase your success in getting people to consider, try this: Start with the part you agree or share with the other person’s perspective. Try for a “Yes… and…” if possible, or “Yes… but…” if you can’t. After the and/but, that’s where you can go into the difference in opinion you have.

My thought was someone would wheel in a giant arch, say it’s a gift for Trump, have him bring it into the main area of the White House, then people would jump out and overthrow the White House?

Call it the Arc de Troyomph?

Palantir “bought” the FDA back in April (/s), so your food is safe in their hands anyway.

Kid Rock or Boy George might be able to open for Ed, lol