It was kind of inevitable, unfortunately. After we impeach one of them for even legitimate wrongdoing, if they do not counter-impeach us, they lose perceived legitimacy, which weakens them.
They had no other strategically sound moves, when you consider their goal of hanging onto power regardless of the wishes of the voting public.
That’s a clever line of attack, but having an opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Otherwise there would be a whole shit-ton of recusal happening every day.
A conflict of interest usually involves some form of monetary compensation or other fiscal benefit.
It’s kinda hard to wrap your brain around sometimes, but bad people can be patriots too. When you have a proper, full-scale war going on, these people become a resource like any other.
Anti-corruption is great during peace time. Necessary, even. But it cannot always be the top priority in all situations, that’s just not practical.
I would even argue that if you’re not continually adjusting your priorities as situations develop, you’re not a very good leader. So yeah, buy his guns now. Throw him in prison later. Can even confiscate back some of the money you paid. You have to win first though.
This comment is hilarious, and it being downvoted is sad.
Intelligent is where it goes wrong. They only claim to like intelligence, because that sounds good to claim. They’re actually extremely anti-intellectual in basically every way you can be. Real jocks vs nerds stuff, for people who never outgrew a HS mentality.
Surprised this one took so long. We’ve had basic hologram tech for decades now. Even with a private jet, it’s not like flying cross country all the time for business is fun or anything. Being on a jet is still being on a jet, and not being able to do anything except pull out your laptop, mobile device or book.
I would describe it as a cacaphonic symphony that you eventually get used to. It packs as much information into one sense as you can get from your other four put together.
Much like how you can discern an individual instrument type in a symphony, sight lets you discern individual objects from afar, and gives you a mostly accurate summary of its basic properties.
Also much like with sound, it can be very appealing or unappealing, depending. There’s an intrinsic beauty to the sense itself though. Every object has color, for instance, and color is more like smell. It can give you hints about what something is, but its mostly an arbitrary blend of different “flavors” that combine to create more complex examples.
It’s the super-sense, the one sense that binds them all. When one of your other four detects something, your first instinct is to locate it with sight to determine more information before you do anything else. You “look at it” first. Almost without fail.
I’m not him, but now that I think about it, there is a tendency for many people to prefer the more generalized term.
Where scientists don’t tend to use the word scientist as much, I can’t recall ever seeing the term in a journal article for instance. (I don’t read many, but I’ll read an abstract here and there) I’m not sure why. I expect it’s some categorization thing, where not all scientists perform research, so researcher is the more precise term. I’m just guessing as to the reason though, I do not have a PhD.
Problem with attacking stupidity is its not necessarily fixable. We do not attack people over things they cannot change, like the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.
How do they change their innate intelligence? We’re not all gifted with the same amount. Can your system apply to someone who takes 5 minutes to learn the definition of even one new word? Someone who needed remedial classes, because the average classes were beyond their ability?
We need a system that allows for them too. So, asking for intelligence is asking too much, so that the execution of the method is easily within everyone’s capabilities. Thus, back to the drawing board.
I agree, the cross-posting gets annoying. Why do people insist that everyone who is interested in a certain topic needs to participate in their post, so it has to go on every community?
People did not do that on reddit. They just made one post and waited for interaction.
Why does the purpose the data was collected for matter? Either the data is suitable or not. The motive of the pollsters who gathered it is irrelevant, isn’t it?
It’d still irritate them due to the connotations, regardless of how legally actionable their irritation would be.
We’d just get a new one made out of water vapor. I’m sure everything would be fine.
You know, everyone should start calling the service twiX, just to irritate the candy bar company, which is actually a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that does care how its brands are perceived.
I mean, it’s not a fever. It’s just sitting under a big pile of invisible blankets. Get rid of the blankets and things would be fine.
Yet despite the clear creation of echo chambers, which I think is inevitable given how freedom of association works so smoothly and easily online, the Fediverse forces them all to “live next to each other”.
It’s not an entirely separate service I need to go on if I want to see what all the Nazi kids are up to these days.
This forced adjacency and inability to create any blocks stronger than defederation (which is pretty weak, really, compared to what other services can do) is going to have overall beneficial effects in the long-run, I think. Though it’ll certainly cause its fair share of headaches too.
This is underrated. I actually close Lemmy a lot easier and more quickly than I did reddit, it’s not hooking me with dopamine hits nearly as strongly.
As a result, since I know I’ll probably just scroll for a few minutes at a time, I’m more willing to check in more often and toss a few upvotes and maybe a comment or two around.
No, I don’t think the brain really works that way, except in the very broadest sense.
LLMs. Despite how absurdly useful they are, I can recall a time when I had the skills of remembering phone numbers naturally and being able to easily navigate with no maps of any kind.
These skills have deteriorated significantly in the past 10 years, and they’re not the only ones. The common thread they all have is my smartphone replaced them.
I fear losing a skill that is less innocuous, from the new tech effectively replacing my need to practice it.
I’m discussing the specific choice of what rhetoric they decide to use, not why they are using it. Why they are using it is fairly obvious at this point.
There are many different lines, arguments, whatever that could be employed, though. By paying attention to which ones are specifically chosen, you can learn more about their target audience, which is larger than simply fans of a white, ultra-nationalist ethno-state. Hence their need to continue to use rationalizations like this, instead of being forthright about their intentions.
This one in particular surprised me, as I didn’t foresee it. They’re usually more predictable than that.