The late night host was suspended because Donald Trump wanted him suspended.
It doesn’t matter what Kimmel said, or about whom, or how politely… he was censored by the government,.and that’s literally the first thing we put into.the constitution to say 'no, they can’t do that".
Don’t carry water for fascists by repeating their lies.
A diesel engine can literally run on vegetable oil. We don’t need fossil fuel subsidies to keep farm tractors working.
If we must distort the market directly, we should do so on the demand side. Give farmers a per-Joule fuel subsidy, and let them use petro-disel, bio-disel, or electric as the market may provide.
Either we believe that markets work or we don’t
My other half had a very good experience with TalkSpace, which accepts our insurance.
Unless you’re in the Republican medicaid-obamacare gap, you should have insurance and they should have at least some mental health coverage. And if you are or they don’t, a professional stranger via an online service is definitely something you should look into.
Whether or not you’re “really” a real person, or a brain in a jar, or a butterfly dreaming you’re Zhuangzi, you and me and everyone else are still “people” we should respect.
Wrestling with the unfalsifiable nature of reality is something all thought traditions have dealt with, and I’d argue that you’re not really an adult in 2025 if you haven’t contemplated that all you know could be a hallucination.
The screwier question always becomes “if this is a dream , what if you’re not the dreamer?”
Was there any reported reduction in training time needed for subsequent words?
Just getting a computer to understand anything from the implanted wires is progress, but it’s “spend hours training for each single word” we’re still at a 1970s scifi level of interaction.
No, we absolutely should not mark the records of known transgender athletes in any way. Because once you start down that road you wind up asterisking cisgender athletes whose development is outside the norm.
We could get into a long discussion of transgender persons who do or do not undergo HRT, or how there are already rules against transgender women competing professionally if they aren’t on HRT, or whether or not such rules or gendered sports at all are justifiable.
But all of that is just a distraction. The elite in any competitive sport are ALREADY several orders of magnitude beyond the norm, to the point where any advantage a trans woman might have for going through male puberty is essentially a wash with “are you just naturally well-formed for this sport”.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that there ISNT broadly an athletic benefit to having gone through wrong-gender puberty before medically transitioning. Plenty of athletes have done exactly that, and as far as I know exactly none of them wound up being relatively better among their true gender peers post-HRT than their standing among birth-gendeR peers pre-HRT.
And there have been more instances of cisgender women being wrongly accused of being trans than there are transgender women athletes at all.
In order to justify their own bigotry, they seem to be literally abandoning the central teachings of the key teacher in Christianity.
When Jesus was asked “what is the most important part of the law”, the two part response was love . To love God wholly, and to love others as we love ourselves.
When later asked how Christians would be judged, Jesus said that we would be judged as if we had done to Jesus whatever we do to the least among us.
I don’t see how it is possible to reconcile bigotry with either of these teachings. I guess they can twist themselves into rhetorical knots and try, but it seems way easier to just decide to love everyone and leave it to God to judge us for whatever our sins may be.
Not everything is a spectrum. You are either actually pregnant or not-pregnsnt. You’re either free to go when the officet is talking to you or you are being detained. You either had consent for sex or you didn’t.
For example, if the example you provide to bolster your argument is “Hitler had admirable qualities”, then you’ve jumped all the way past Godwin’s law and there’s no use talking to you.
“most people” are (1) a much smaller group that you think and (2) wrong.
If your behavior can at all be described as sexist, then you’re not a feminist. That includes both Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes like JK Rowling.and outright sex pests like Andrew Cuomo.
Of course I’m a feminist. It’s one of those sublime categories like “alive” or “pregnant” that has only two possible states.
"feminazi’ is kinda like calling a woman a “female”. Its use conveys a “I’m a sexist pig” message you do not seem to intend.
Better terms for women who believe that (cisgender) women are superior to men.
Some of these may covey other messages in their usage.
That’s a hell of a lot of words that aren’t either “of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate” or “no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don’t nominate someone sufficiently progressive.”
If you mean the latter, say it. If you don’t, then say that, too.
So, you are in favor of “my guy or the Nazi” voting? I didn’t hear a “no”, there.
It isn’t “loser talk” to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the “both sides” rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.
Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only “not as bad”, or you are doing more harm than good.
What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he’s the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she’s the best choice then?
Primary-only voting doesn’t force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.
And if that isn’t what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for “least bad”, then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?
I don’t know how you square the circle of asserting that ‘both sided are bad’ is what got us here and still echoing “less bad” to buttress their thesis
Waiting for the left to be “good” instead of “less bad” is what makes “both sides are bad” such an effective demobilization tactic.
Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.
Then explain to me how the good guy is not the “least bad” choice.
Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying “both sides are bad” while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.
Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.
1: what the frick are you doing in Excel that needs even 10^2 columns? Rows go up to 2^20 (~10^6), and the thing starts to run like ass way before that.
2: Excel does have a RXCX format, if you really do need to go out hundreds of columns.)
3: feel free to ignore. Bitching about being forced to use the wrong tool is definitely more stress than anyone needs.
If you think that’s bad, look at what “1” means.
(And, honestly, at least windows’ “last big calendar change” and excel’s “start of the century when we wrote it” are reasonable points. The unix “let’s make it recent so we can fit an absurdly small unit as an integer!” Epoch is just… Weird.)
While you’re largely right, it is worth noting that each translation is a distinct work under copyright law, and any translation made after 1929 may be still protected.
And that ignores really young religions, and the copyright status of high-authority extant religions such as Iranian Islam, Mormon and Roman Catholic Christianity, Ron Hubbard’s Scientology or state-atheist communism.
(Whether or not Hubbard, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao count as “religious leaders” is a distinction without a difference in discussion of the copyright status of their works.)