Is the point of the community to promote conservativism or to discuss it? Conservatives aren’t banned from other Lemmy communities, I don’t see any reason to ban non-conservatives from this one.

Besides it’s probably not so much that the community has been “taken over” but that conservative dogma shows low survivability in the presence of alternative ideas, hence the need for conservative safe spaces like Fox News and truth social. I mean really posting Trump bootlicking by Jonathan Turley is just not going to compete in a free marketplace of ideas.

To me I’m not really sure what his reply even means. I think it’s some attempt at a joke (because of course the government uses SQL), but I figure the joke can be broken down into two potential jokes that fail for different, embarrassing reasons:

Interpretation 1: The government is so advanced it doesn’t use SQL - This interpretation is unlikely given that Elon is trying to portray the government as in need of reform. But it would make more sense if coming from a NoSQL type who thinks SQL needs to be removed from everywhere. NoSQL Guy is someone many software devs are familiar with who takes the sometimes-good idea of avoiding SQL and takes it way too far. Elon being NoSQL Guy would be dumb, but not as dumb as the more likely interpretation #2.

Interpretation 2: The government is so backward it doesn’t use SQL - I think this is the more likely interpretation as it would be consistent with Elon’s ideology, but it really falls flat because SQL is far from being cutting-edge. There has kind of been a trend of moving away from SQL (with considerable controversy) over the last 10 years or so and it’s really surprising that Elon seems completely unaware of that.

He did the exact same thing after taking over Twitter, talking about “poorly batched RPCs” in the timeline which makes zero sense because that’s obviously not how HTTP works.

The sad thing is Elon regularly shows how much of a very judgmental, “I’m so smart” idiot* he is, but somehow I keep meeting people who think he’s a genius. I guess the assumption that money=smart still holds true in the US, despite being disproven time and time again.

*Do we not have a single word for this concept? I come across this kind of person so frequently there really should be one.

Gustav Bauer had no religious affiliation and in any case he did not sign the Treaty of Versailles. It was signed for Germany by Matthias Erzberger, who was also not Jewish. But, those sorts of facts tended to make little difference to the German far right of that time which basically branded everyone they didn’t like as Jews.

There’s probably as many theories as there are people.

My own is that cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, especially for a narcissist. Hitler spent 4 of the best years of his life is the pure misery of the trenches of WWI, and even worse - running between the trenches to deliver messages. He was gassed so badly it put him in the hospital for the final month of the war. Hitler was probably also deluded about Germany’s failing position in the war, probably kept in the dark by German propaganda and made quite gullible by his fierce patriotism. So when Germany surrendered, that must have actually both shocking and enraging for him. And we know that because he frequently attacked the treaty of Versailles.

The “stab in the back” myth is the idea that Germany’s surrender was corruptly carried out by politicians, and due to common antisemitism across Germany and Europe generally it soon focused on Jews. In reality there was virtually no Jewish people significantly involved with the surrender and events leading up to it, but that didn’t matter because as is often the case today, emotional truth is more important than reality. Given that Hitler couldn’t possibly bring himself to believe that he incurred tremendous pain and suffering by voluntarily and stupidly buying into an imperialistic war that was doomed to failure from the start, the stab in the back myth would’ve been extremely appealing to him. He wanted to believe it, so he did.

So when he happened to be assigned to monitor the DAP - the predecessor to the Nazi Party - he was ready to wholeheartedly accept their antisemitic ideas. Even though he seemed to get along with Jewish officers during the war, by a year after the war he was already talking about “removing” the Jews.

This does appear to be the state department flag pole (on 21st street looking East from the state department). And it does appear to be winter, and there is construction in that area around the fed building. But that’s all I can say. The photo is weirdly blurry and grainy so be suspicious.

I already did, it didn’t work.

Trump had the best performance among minority voters of any President in recent memory. And then:

• One token black cabinet member - in HUD of course, just like last time
• Top priority is deporting Hispanics specifically
• Silences and discussion of diversity/inclusion in federal agencies on threat of firing
• Eliminates ability to do anything about discrimination
• Approves ethnic cleansing of Gaza
• Allies closely with South African who blamed LA wildfires on black firefighters and Boeing’s door problems on racial diversity

I think we need to be unafraid to say the truth. Trump is definitely, obviously racist. Yes, people do get accused of being racist unfairly. Trump is not one of them.

So the article just ignores the two cases that actually establish birthright citizenship:

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers*, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649

In case that’s too old-timey to be understood, there’s also

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

*“foreign sovereigns and their ministers” means basically diplomats.

Note that the author has a “bachelor’s degree in economics and a master’s degree in public policy, finance, and international relations from the University of Colorado.” He has no legal training which makes it a bit less surprising that he missed the key cases, but then again all you really need to know is how to use wikipedia.

I’m always suspicious of this sort of analysis because what are they basing it on? If you have no data, you’re just speculating about what would have worked and that’s just lazy. For every analysis saying Democrats were too bipartisan, there’s at least 5 others saying they were too far-left. They’re all equally lazy, just relying on the author’s blatantly biased speculations.

I can think of two things that are too obvious to be doubted about this last election: 1) Inflation and the non-informative way the media covered its causes drastically harmed Democrats 2) Biden was a terrible candidate due to being old as fuck and shouldn’t have run. Anything else, bring evidence.

For an example of a non-lazy opinion that focuses on actual data about why people voted one way or another, this is the best one I’ve seen.

You can also see the original thread here: https://xcancel.com/koshercockney/status/1878502195319992667#m . Good lord, there’s so much nazism on X now. It’s become a goddamned Nuremberg rally. You’ve got zionist fascists fighting with nazi fascists.

So I see what you’re saying, and of course there’s ways to argue this killing could accomplish something good. But let me ask you this - based on the history of society and the typical results of assassinations, violence, and instability, what do you predict will actually change from this?

When I look at this, I see parallels to past emotional leftist movements like Occupy Wall Street and BLM, that did garner a lot of attention and lead to a lot of discussion, but in terms of policy change were only followed by political defeats for those movements. It seems to me that yes these movements get attention, but it’s the wrong kind of attention.

I fail to see a definition of murderer that includes this CEO and doesn’t include literally everybody. I mean how many future people do we all murder when we drive our cars or even order a package delivered. Unless you’re just sitting in a corner eating rice and beans and washing it down with water, you’ve probably contributed to someone’s death by now.

The real murderer is the capitalist US health care system, and that’s still very much alive and well. This CEO’s death is negligible compared to the problem, instead it’s just a second problem.

It’s the same mistake that all of society has made for about 5000 years now. Punishing individuals for preventable deaths that are caused by bad systems at best causes suffering for a steep cost and virtually no actual benefit while providing an opiate that keeps us from confronting the actual problem, and at worst actually contributes to those preventable deaths.

A large number of us CAN be millionaires.

It’s actually technically correct that we all can be millionaires, at least on a household basis. The mean household wealth in the US was $1.06 million as of 2022, by now it’s undoubtedly higher. So with a full redistribution of wealth every household would have over $1 million.

In reality though the median household wealth is just under $200k as of 2022, and doesn’t rise as consistently so who knows where it is now.

In my experience:

• A lot of people do this with 401ks and such because many times there aren’t many other options.
• People I know who are serious investors with a lot of money tend to not invest much in the S&P 500 because they think of themselves as superior investors, but I don’t know of anyone for whom this is actually true based on past performance.
• I invest some 20% of my money in the S&P 500, which is probably not as much as I should. It’s some combination of the above hubris, which is natural, wanting to be diversified, and enjoying gambling on individual stocks.

I’d be curious about what makes him different from the others. There’s been some research regarding fluid intelligence* vs. crystalized intelligence, where liberals tend to be more on the fluid side. It kind of makes sense because rather than trying to figure out what they can’t understand off the bat, conservatives tend to rage against it.

As far as gifts, I dunno. Maybe a puzzle game? I don’t know what’s big in the puzzle game world now, if anything. The idea is make your son more comfortable with the idea of tackling novel problems instead of trying to cram them into an existing framework.

*it’s called “intelligence” but I tend to think of it more like a thinking strategy. Fluid intelligence being “can I think of a way to solve this?” while crystallized intelligence is “what strategy that I’m familiar with already can solve this?”

The whole point was to put this in your cubicle so you could pretend you had a personality that was more than being a cog in the machine. Then the pandemic happened.

They’re a convenient political target because it makes insecure men not want to be associated with them. Believe it or not, a similar thing happened last time Republicans won the popular vote in 2004 - back then the issue was gay marriage. Bush went hard on opposing that and it helped him win.

Twitter is dumb as fucking fuck. Political leaders shouldn’t be there. If you shitpost, you shouldn’t be in charge of anything but shitposting.

Imagine if there was a hack so bad that it caused everyone to become unable to develop in C and C++.

Classic “let’s just make the cure worse than the disease” mindset among security enthusiasts.