[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 26 points 1 month ago

Holy shit, Stamets changing their name because of the last season is probably the single most damning condemnation I could think of if

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 26 points 1 month ago

And on the other side of the coin, hard-right Israelis work to paint any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, regardless of legitimacy.

So on the one hand, you have antisemites using this as an opportunity to blame all the world's ills on tHe (((gLoBALiStS))) (I really hope that came across as sarcastic enough), and on the other, you have ultraconservative Israelis using the first group to lump the people saying "please don't do a genocide" in with them. And on top of that you also have Hamas doing the goddamn Goofy "and I'll fuckin do it again" meme, along with a bunch of people in Palestine who are literally taught antisemitism and hatred in the classroom, while Russia, Iran, and the same goddamn Israelis painting everyone as antisemitic pour money into the group that would genocide Israel back in a heartbeat. And caught in the middle of this category 5 shit hurricane are a bunch of innocent people who just want to be treated like human beings with equal rights, and to be able to go to the goddamn grocery store without worrying about getting exploded by a piss rocket / laser-guided cluster bomb made by Lockheed Martin.

I'm so goddamn fucking sick and tired of everything with this. Literally the only "good guys" in this entire fucking 70-year conflict are the noncombatants on either side of the Gaza border wall trying to go about their day and whose entire lives are reduced to a casualty sheet and a propaganda blurb, while both sides just keeps fighting and killing because perverse incentives mean it's the only way both Netanyahu and Hamas can cling to power, innocent life be damned.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 29 points 1 month ago

I'd say "inb4 the AI cultists invade this thread" but it looks like I'm already too late

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 26 points 2 months ago

Fuck that victim-blaming nonsense. The entire reason ad blockers were invented in the first place were because ads in the 90s and early 2000s were somehow even worse than they are now. You would click on a website, and pop-up ads would literally open new windows under your mouse cursor and immediately load an ad that opened another pop-up ad, and then another, and another, until you had 30 windows open and 29 of them were pop-up ads, all of them hoping to trick you into clicking on them to take you to a website laden with more and more pop-up ads. Banner ads would use bright, flashing, two-tone colors (that were likely seizure-inducing, so have fun epileptics!) to demand your attention while taking up most of your relatively tiny, low-resolution screen.

The worst offenders were the Flash-based ads. On top of all the other dirty tricks that regular ads did, they would do things like disguising themselves as games to trick you into clicking them. ("Punch the monkey and win a prize!" The prize was malware.) They would play sound and video--which were the equivalent of a jump scare back then, because of how rare audio/video was on the Internet in that day. They would exploit the poor security of Flash to try and download malware to your PC without you even interacting with them. And all this while hogging your limited dialup connection (or DSL if you were lucky), and dragging your PC to a crawl with horrible optimization. When Apple refused to support Flash on iOS way back in the day, it was a backdoor ad blocker because of how ubiquitous Flash was for advertising content at the time.

The point of all this is that advertisers have always abused the Internet, practically from day one. Firefox first became popular because it was the first browser to introduce a pop-up blocker, which was another backdoor ad blocker. Half the reason why Google became the company it did is because it started out as a deliberate break from the abuses of everyone else and gave a simple, clean interface with to-the-point, unobtrusive, text-based advertisements.

If advertisers and Google in particular had stuck to that bargain--clean, unobstrusive, simple advertisements that had no risk of malware and no interruption to user workflow, ad blockers would largely be a thing of the past. Instead, they decided to chase the profit dragon, and modern Google is no better than the very companies it originally replaced.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 34 points 3 months ago

We're making our last payment on our EV this month, and a few weeks ago I brought up the idea of maybe trading it in for a newer EV, since our current one was starting to show signs of possible battery degradation and it's a Leaf that's stuck with CHAdeMO charging instead of CCS/NACS charging. My husband asked me what car we'd consider replacing it with, and the instant I floated maybe looking at a used Tesla, my husband barked back "Absolutely NOT!" And the thing was, I couldn't find myself disagreeing, either.

I know that my husband and I are far from the only ones who think the same way.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 28 points 5 months ago

An actual technical answer: Apparently, it's because while the PS5 and Xbox Series X are technically regular x86-64 architecture, they have a design that allows the GPU and CPU to share a single pool of memory with no loss in performance. This makes it easy to allocate a shit load of RAM for the GPU to store textures very quickly, but it also means that as the games industry shifts from developing for the PS4/Xbox One X first (both of which have separate pools of memory for CPU & GPU) to the PS5/XSX first, VRAM requirements are spiking up because it's a lot easier to port to PC if you just keep the assumption that the GPU can handle storing 10-15 GB of texture data at once instead of needing to refactor your code to reduce VRAM usage.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah, because the presidency was already covered by the phrase "any office, civil or military." This very concern is brought up during the congressional debates over ratifying the amendment, and is addressed:

But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President.

Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.

Source: https://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf page 60

So the original people drafting the Amendment understood it to cover the presidency.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 34 points 6 months ago

That makes literally zero sense, because the 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding any civil or military office who engaged in insurrection. and before you go on "well durrrrr the presidency isn't an office," the constitution refers to the presidency as the Office of the President of the United States repeatedly:

Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Article 1, section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

(This provision is especially important because it means that if the presidency isn't counted as an office the president is literally immune from impeachment because there's no provision in the constitution to actually try the president for impeachment.)

Article 2, section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

12th Amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Claiming that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the presidency completely ignores the plain text of the entire fucking constitution!

Another fun side effect is that the president not being an office covered under the 14th amendment would also mean they're exempt from the Emoluments clause, though that one might already be dead.......

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 34 points 6 months ago

I'd bet the ticket slipped through the cracks--it might have been pulled by an agent near the end of their shift who thought "I'll respond first thing tomorrow" and was let go the next day, or the ticketing system glitched and improperly took it out of the queue, or a tier 1 agent didn't follow proper escalation procedures and reassigned it to someone who never bothers to check their ticketing queue.

I'd suggest submitting a fresh ticket along the lines of "Following up re: ticket 29XXXXX" and copy-pasting the original message into the new ticket.

Source: work for a different company's support team that also uses a public-facing ticketing system

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 26 points 9 months ago

Yeah, as someone in a tech job whose primary function is "parsing and interpreting logs" sometimes even the repeated flood of seemingly useless logs can be helpful. If nothing else, they explain why there aren't any useful logs and that can guide how I respond to the problem.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 24 points 9 months ago

Yeah, like... I'm not on beehaw myself, but if beehaw goes, I'd probably end up leaving myself. One of my biggest complaints about Lemmy in general is the lack of special interest communities. There's politics, porn, general news, technology news (which is mostly complaining about That One Guy), Linux discussion, general memes like you'd see on Twitter or Reddit, and a trickle of more niche memes. There's a complete dearth of content for niche communities like individual games or special interest hobbies, because the userbase is simply too small to support a healthy special interest community. If Beehaw migrates off Lemmy, it will take a big chunk of that already too-small userbase with it, and the problem will be exacerbated even further. If that happens, I don't know if it's worth sticking around.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 21 points 10 months ago

The problem with your equivocating is that the Republicans haven't even been able to turn up the usual "DC status quo" corruption. The absolute worst they've been able to find so far is that Hunter promised (but never actually delivered) access to his dad, lied on his taxes, likes his nose candy, and is hung like a horse. Nobody's scandalized over this because there's nothing to be scandalized over. Hunter isn't part of the administration, there's no evidence he ever discussed business with his dad, and he's getting punished for the crimes he's committed. The real scandal is how much he's been harassed over nothing, up to and including people sending out fucking revenge porn to their followers.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Eccitaze

joined 1 year ago