svcg

joined 2 years ago
[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

I think you mean:

velociraptor = dpositionraptor/dtimeraptor

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

In summary

Vote blue no matter who:

Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won't immediately get worse.

Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.

Result - Things don't get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.

Vote blue only if X:

Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.

Con - Democrats less likely to win.

Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.

Can we please stop litigating this now?

Edit: The "best" approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don't think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 days ago

I think a more accurate TL;DR is that Garland was the wrong guy for the job, but the Biden thing is more broadly true, too.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

I'm not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge's order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.

Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It is perfectly cromulent to use "less" in place of "fewer".

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 days ago

As someone who voted for Nick Clegg in their first ever general election vote, I think it's important that we shatter our youth's idealism early and often.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 6 days ago

Be Normal About Pizzacake Challenge (Impossible)

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Why is Beryllium worse than Lithium?

Edit: apparently beryllium ions will fuck up your magnesium containing enzymes.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

I think a few of the commissioners are appointed by a body of judges, but most of them appointed to the commission by the commission after open job application.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Bolton. Bury. Wigan. Perhaps other parts of Lancashire, also.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It seems really weird you let the president pick the supreme court justices in the first place really. It's also odd that you vote for judges in some places, because that makes the process overtly political, but even that would be better than just letting the president pick them.

In England and Wales, judges are essentially appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The single syllable words "four" and "hour" are actually the two syllable words "fohwer" and "ower".

The words "anything" and "nothing" are pronounced "owt" and "nowt".

The word "the" is not pronounced "t'", it is simply replaced with an unvoiced glottal stop. The word "t'" is thus, actually, short for "to the".

E.g.

Goin' t' shop. Wan' owt?

means

I'm going to the shop. Do you want anything?

We also pronounce "bus" as "buzz", too.

We also use "was" and "were" the wrong way round and say "pants" instead of "trousers". The rest of the country seems unaware of that last one, and will accuse you of talking American.

 
view more: next ›