_NoName_

literally says: baseline is the average from 1991 to 2020, and the data is from ERA5.

Title’s hard click bait. It leads up to talking about Arrow’s Impossibility theorem, which sets forth some explicit rules for defining a fair election, and communicates that all finite-vote systems are dictatorships that fail to meet those criteria, including ranked choice voting. Arrow’s theorem also uses ‘dictatorship’ in a pretty weird technical fashion, meaning that one individual can technically sway any election with their sole choices.

Directly after, though, Veritasium does acknowledge that Duncan Black pokes holes in the actual value of Arrow’s theorem, by showing that many ordinal voting systems will still favor majority preference, and that Arrow’s theorem does not apply to rated voting systems like approval voting and STAR voting.

It’s pretty bizarre that he decided to make such a click-baity title and front-load only skim over the better solution at the end, right near election month.

Second, we’re talking about ethnicity here, not religion. Jews are also an ethnic group. Y-DNA is very relevant.

Ethnicity is not what was being talked about just now; You were talking about DNA lineage.

Ethnicity deals with cultural self-identity, which includes religion and does not deal at all with DNA relation.

My understanding, though, is that Jewish culture actually has a long history of genealogy via family tree mapping long before DNA testing was available. That does have some ethnic connection as a cultural tradition.

Bobby Duke’s good too. Fairly talented, but also just a dad making sculptures while fuckin with cinematography.

Are we talking anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or some third option? Because since Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, the meaning in the US has been a bit shakey.

For an idea of US libertarians, most people think of "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear"

I’ve seen some screenshots sifting around, and it’ll take a minute for me to hunt those down.

For now, here’s a xeet from the victim after rereading the chat logs directly.

Edit: I forgot about this, woops. I did find a Redditch megathread about the issue that has some screenshots of discord chats. That is probably the best aggregation of info and evidence currently. Apologies about reddit.

“I was not groomed” would just as easily come from someone being groomed as someone not, since the victim is unlikely to know it’s happening to them in the moment. IIRC, the chat logs for that situation were cancel-worthy by themselves - grooming accusations aside.

There’s an entire section of Hamas’ Wikipedia page dedicated to it. The gist is that there’s testamony that Israel explicitly funded Hamas in order to counter the PLO. This was to ensure a Palestinian state would never materialize.

I have not researched the matter due as enough to have a full opinion, though I’ve heard multiple individuals state that it is almost indisputable that it happened.

I strongly support an opt-in model. You are given a list of ‘tags’ that denote content and that are most popular, and you can add them to your home feed. The unselected tags simply show the most popular posts of the most popular unselected tags.

That’s the system I think of at a glance, which I can already think of ways to game with bots, but I think there are likely much smarter folks out there who can work on solving those issues.

I’m assuming they mean they’re shunning Zionist scientists? I would guess that there are pro-Palestine scientists out there who have Israeli citizenship.

Edit:article is subscription-walled but from what I read it’s specifically that scientists at Israeli institutions are getting dropped in protest.

Because he is the poster child of conserving the Reagan-enshittified status quo, and the US administration is attempting to continue keeping a leg up on the cold war it desperately wants to continue.

I’ve learned that most of the time I’m just going to have to break down what I mean. I’ve gotten pretty good at getting what neurotypical people mean first try, but that door does not swing both ways.

It makes forming relationships much more difficult, but once someone understands they’ll need some patience I can just explain things till we both get what I’m saying.

I’ve heard that neurodivergent folks understand each other immediately without issue but that there’s a barrier between the two sides communicating. I’d believe it. I run into other neurodivergent people sometimes and am able to just immediately click with them.

If you haven’t already, folks, switch your default search engine over to a searx. You’ll gain back the ability to actually find useful results. It’s not so good for shopping, though.

The answer seems to be “it depends” and “if you have the right equipment and know-how”

Link related

I think a good solution would to just have that script autogenerated by the flatpak, honestly.

Encyclopedia britannica:

political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.

Wikipedia asserts a similar definition

History.com again corroborates this:

The style of politics that claims to speak for ordinary people and often stirs up distrust has risen up on both sides of the political spectrum throughout U.S. history.

Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say ‘populism’.

Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the ‘common voter.’ It is neither good nor bad.

Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.

The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.

Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort ‘true populists’ who are actually trying to help their supporter base from ‘faux-populists’ fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.

That does make sense.

Why is this news being given by Ukraine’s intelligence chief? I would assume we’d get it from another vector.

I don’t think Navalny believed any resistance would be mounted for him - he might have had hope but I don’t think he counted on anything. I think he chose to go back knowing he would likely die. He chose to be a martyr to maximize the effect he’d have.