Well, that’s because Trump was a softball candidate who stood no chance at winning and only acted as a spoiler candidate in relation to other, actual potential Republican candidates.

I think what people believe is more a matter of environment, exposure, and upbringing. The Rittenhouses are victims of an ideology that they internalized because they were, in some very real way, made to internalize it. It doesn’t benefit them and it exists purely to support systems of power that actively disenfranchise them and people like them. And “our” ideologies, however similar or different your beliefs and mine might be, are just as much a product of environment and conditioning. I’m not entirely sure I can draw the exact line where a society’s failure of its own people stops and personal accountability begins when it’s tied so intimately to how an individual believes the world is and should be.

I’m going to go ahead and post my hot take: I hate that these people are facing eviction and that they’re faced with crippling medical debt caused by chronic illness and frequent hospitalization. I don’t like these people. I don’t agree with their beliefs. I think Kyle Rittenhouse did something unforgivably terrible and that his family likely enabled him and his actions. But I also don’t want them to be homeless or to have to deal with medical debt, because those are things that I believe our society should guarantee, as inalienable rights, that no one, regardless of how odious they or their family might be, should have to endure. And I don’t care that they (probably) believe differently.

Fun fact about A Boy and His Dog: it’s one of the primary influences (actually probably THE primary influence) of the Fallout games and their setting. In that sense, much of it is a criticism of Cold War American culture. All of the horrible stuff done to women in that movie is not an endorsement of it, but more of a direct criticism of the underlying misogyny in American culture. Also, it’s based on a Harlan Ellison novella. Or collection of them, rather.

The party of states’ rights and “keeping the government out of your private life” really like telling cities what they can and can’t do in order to reduce the intrusion of the government into their private lives. I mean, let’s be honest. This is basically being targeted because this is going to significantly reduce the number of non-violent offenders (almost all of whom are gonna be people of color, because damn if the cops don’t love pulling over black people to try and find weed in their car) ingested into the prison industrial complex and the GOP has a fuckload of skin in that game.

Generalizing is fine and a useful tool in certain situations. In others, it’s not, and can in fact be very harmful. It’s also sometimes good to explain why you support one versus the other in a particular scenario. Y’know…because that’s how conversations work.

Crazy that you’re the only person I’ve found in the thread that realizes this. Generational theory largely accepts that the concept of monolithic generations is reductive. Yes, people born in and around the same time can have shared cultural experiences, but the idea that those are what purely shape you ideologically or that you behave as a component of a monolith are ludicrous. And then there’s subgenerations, microgenerations, etc. Just look at the sociological research of Karl Mannheim for a very complex discussion on the topic.

Many of the issues they leave behind are ones that existed when they were born.

Surely you mean it comes with a 1000 dollar monitor, not…just the monitor stand?

I still have nightmares from the porn I’ve found on emule decades ago. Apparently some people have fetishes that involve brutally killing animals…

Holy fuck, emule?! At this point, just use usenet.

I’ve written poorer documentation than this.

“Here is a work around to fix [weird bug in production]:”

“Edit: Disregard the above. It fixes [weird bug in production] but causes [bad thing] to happen.”

“Edit 2: Apparently the first edit is wrong. It doesn’t cause [bad thing] to happen. Bad thing just happened to occur simultaneously the first time I did the workaround.”

“Edit 3: [weird bug in production] has been fixed. This workaround is no longer needed.”

“Edit 4: Turns out [weird bug in production] we fixed is what allowed our systems to communicate with one another. Had to rollback change. Work around is now considered ‘the fix’ going forward.”

“Edit 5: Turns out it DOES cause [bad thing] to happen, but [bad thing happening] is a core component of our system’s design and also PAYROLL NEEDS IT TO FUNCTION?!”

I just looked at the product page and every single image makes me dislike this product more than the last. The goddamn thing probably weighs 10 pounds and comes with fucking wheels.

Edit: Apparently it weighs 37 pounds. I don’t know how they crammed that much bullshit into a 18 by 9 by 20 box, but they did and then they slapped wheels on it. The wheels are probably considered a two thousand dollar “value” by Apple, though.

Wizards/Hasbro hires contractors to produce art for their game. They make virtually none of it in house. It’s most likely they neither know nor care who or what produces art for MTG. Besides, they produce so much content in a year, some of it has to be AI/ML generated, so this is incredibly unsurprising. At this point, MTG is starting to enshittify by dumping out product as quickly as possible. Their quality control and playtesting has gone out the window. Most of their recent sets are pretty poorly received in the limited magic space. I don’t personally care about the use of AI art, but I can say that for money making enterprises, they’ll eventually have more and more art produced via ML over time, and eventually they’ll use ML to design sets in some capacity, as well. Right now, people are upset over it or annoyed by it on some quasi-ethical grounds of “stealing from artists by not compensating them for the work they produced being used to train the models.” But it’s going to eventually become the norm, purely on the basis that they aren’t going to lose any money from using ML to produce art and they’re going to save money by doing it.

The foundational premise of this argument is purely that there’s something “special” about human thought and that the way humans do pattern recognition is somehow “better” than a machine’s.