There’s only one Dem to vote for in this race, and it ain’t Cuomo

Being pedantic about a good point, but I’m pretty sure you have an extra zero in that percentage. 0.016% of 3 trillion is 480 million, 0.0016% is 48 million

Combining the two: centrists have bad vibes because they always have an authenticity problem. They position themselves against change, but then happily go where the Overton window takes them (see Biden’s outgoing border bill). They are for nothing except what they think is popular at the moment, which is usually out of date information, and that comes across as fake and focused on accumulating power rather than solving problems. You don’t need to be a policy wonk to see that centrists will say anything to get your vote and do nothing to solve your problems

So you’re telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don’t need to sell me on it twice!

Hamas sent an assassin into her IDF controlled cell and killed her. Give us more bombs

Is this not just “the free market of ideas”? Which has the same pitfalls as the free market of money where if consumers are not educated and motivated to prune out bad actors, the market is easily subverted by malicious actors? Relying on people to regulate their information diets is betting on individuals with limited resources and motivation to defend themselves and the collective against concerted, well-resourced, and well-organized efforts to abuse the market of ideas because there is immense money and power to gain from doing so

Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies. No, not Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, the parody of that film made on the budget of the “plot” portion of a porn flick. I don’t know why I like it, but it’s some good dumb fun

Just open YouTube in incognito mode and search a game title probably works. YouTube’s algorithm loves serving up manosphere style content like that like my dog loves eating my other dog’s poop. It’s disturbing on both fronts

I read a bit further. Definitely got the vibe that AI had a hand in editing the prose as well, it felt like half a story and half a pros/cons list. There’s some technical content in there that is salvageable, but as a piece of writing, it holds up to that stamp of quality, IMO

Miss Minutes’ villain origin story

I can’t tell if I’m learning German by osmosis or if I’m just adapting to some hybrid Deutschelish dialect from Lemmy that has no use in the real world

Except what you said is imprison him. You called for an innocent man to be imprisoned. Are you 100% certain that you aren’t letting a subconscious bias about his innocence into your thoughts by using that language?

Maybe this is an SI purist and want to see meters per second or nothing? That would be silly because KPH is well used across the metric world, of course

It was a long ass year though

I don’t think I am describing any hypothetical voter switching? I’m defending the value of the poll as data, and describing how the poll’s data could be extrapolated into a projection of positive or negative vibes for a desired result by comparing outcomes against naive assumptions on how undecided voters might distribute their votes. Maybe you are talking about that? I don’t consider an undecided voter deciding how they will use their vote “switching” on an issue, and I tried to make it clear that I’m not saying anybody should count on any percentage of the undecided vote, just that you’d rather be in a position where you need fewer undecided voters to reach 50% vs more. I actually left out the nuance where opinions can change over the course of a campaign, causing voters to either switch or opt against voting, that does add uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Which is my point; your language is accusing “neoliberals” of “counting on votes”, and I’m just arguing that this poll doesn’t need to count on any votes to communicate a positive, if uncertain, picture of the potential future. Your comment feels like it would be more relevant on an opinion piece about this poll that says that this election is in the bag (kind of like how your original comment implied that this poll meant the election was in the bag as a no, as I read it), which is why I am confused. I’ll admit, I can’t read Icelandic, so I haven’t read the article attached to this headline, which is maybe where I am missing context, I’m just reading the headline and a translated excerpt from the comments, so maybe there is an argument being made elsewhere in the article that I’m unaware of. I’m sorry if my tone was accusatory, I’m trying to express my confusion as to why your reaction to my comment was to talk about neoliberals counting votes, which seemed tangential to the comment I made

Yes. But… This poll doesn’t do that. The headline calls out 44% as the top line number, which includes 0 undecided. The tone of the headline as positive news for those in favor of EU membership is based on an implicit assertion that only 30% of undecideds would be needed to clear the 50% mark, which is a pretty good margin of error on the 50/50 division that you might naively assign to a population you have no other data on, especially before you take into a count those who may opt not to vote. It’s also notable as an opinion poll for politicians actions outside of a direct referendum (not every issue will swing every vote, so knowing that this issue has more potential to swing votes towards vs. against you might encourage actions and rhetoric supporting a closer relationship with the EU. Finally, it’s relevant as a comparison point to prior polls on this issue (in 2017, for example, a quick Google search suggests that the average was more like -20 margin opposed to EU membership, so the transition to +8 in favor is significant). It feels like you are arguing a straw man here, but maybe I am the one missing context.

Only 36% are no. So a +8 poll with 20% undecided. Definitely could swing the other way if it came to a vote/referendum, but you’d almost definitely rather be the candidate with +8 if this were an election

Description says the poster caught 9h of video, but based on the clock watermark in the top left, what is shown is about 7.5h of video (maybe cut for the interesting bits/highest quality) from 0830ish to 1600ish) at a rate of roughly 20 minutes of real time per 1 second video time, as the original commenter pointed out

Yep, or any other etf or fund that tracks an ex US index, if folks don’t want to give their money/share votes to Vanguard. I’m unfortunately not well versed in brokerages outside the US, so no fund suggestions, but VXUS tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Ex US index, MSCI also has a World ex US index, it shouldn’t be too hard to find an ex US index tracking fund at a reputable brokerage of your choice

A lot of their direct competition is not in the S&P 500 because they are not American companies. Hyundai, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan, BYD, etc. American automakers let the EV market languish so long that they are only now becoming legitimate competitors in that space