- 5 Posts
- 26 Comments
4·23 days agoYou still have brackets, but they’re at every $0.01
1·23 days agoHey thanks for the deep context & lore, that was refreshingly orienting!
I’m ok with continuing to talk to people who aren’t ready or willing to understand that.
I’m not sure if I want Google to be the ones to do that. Ideally there would be some involvement from a proper standardization body like ITU.
But in my shallow understanding of RCS, it seems like a good candidate. I thought I read that Apple was starting to roll it out this year…
Looks like it doesn’t do RCS
9·1 month agoCommodity hardware & open source software for the win.
When my Western Digital NAS was never going to get critical security patches, I was so freaking glad to find out that they just used software raid… I threw the HDDs in a Debian server and never looked back.
It’s certainly nice to have things that are turn-key, but if you can find your way around any OS, just avoid proprietary everything.
Isn’t building a CRM a sort of rite of passage for tech entrepreneur failures?
1·1 month agoGrayjay can stream nebula, so there must be a way.
1·1 month agoNever thought about that before, but now I’m curious: what exactly makes a gang not a cult?
Chatbots can’t “admit” things. They regurgitate text that just happens to be information a lot of the time.
That said, the irony is iron clad.
It’s easy to worry about it, when the change wasn’t even necessary and has no effect if we’re to believe it was written in good faith.
Case in point, this amendment pretended to close a loophole which didn’t even exist. Wisconsin law already prohibited non citizens from voting. It does not pass the smell test, being as haphazardly written as it is now.
In the context of these definitions, I think “qualified elector” just means a voter.
Interesting, if that’s what it means in this context it would be a big relief. But that isn’t what any of the reporting from either side is indicating.
To be clear, I know what we’re told the amendment is meant to do. I’m concerned about an unwanted gap in the choice of language it created.
If the new wording was appended to the statement instead of replacing it, I would agree with you.
But the word “every” is a guaranteed inclusion (while not explicitly excluding anyone), while “only” is a guaranteed exclusion (while not explicitly including anyone).
For a dumb example, my chili recipe says “every type of bean may be used”, I can put black beans and pinto beans in it, and no one can tell me otherwise. But if I change it to “only beans may be used”, that is more open to further restrictions by later stipulations.
“Do not use pinto beans” is in direct contradiction with “every type of bean may be used”.
“Do not use pinto beans” is actually not a contradiction with “only beans may be used”.
What I’m seeing with the new language is that a new law saying something like “Students who continue to live with their parents are not permitted to participate in elections” is actually permissible and not in contradiction with the statement "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.”
At least according to the constitution. Prior to Nov 5, it would be unconstitutional in WI to pass such a law, that’s no longer the case.
The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.
The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?
Interrupt your habits.
(take-a-break), so you have to go through the hassle of editing it to log in.You don’t need to be up to the minute or even the day for most of your interests, you can catch up when you have time to do so intentionally.
Interruptions cause you to slow down and give your will power a moment to catch up and intervene.