Yeesh friend, kinda jumped down OP’s throat here, no? Seems pretty uncharitable to go from their posted meme to “this cartoonish fantasy world of yours”, and then take that even further.

Uhm, are we looking at the same comic? Because it most definitely is making an assessment of the impact of the shooter’s actions. What’s the thing being impacted? I would say world. Charitable interpretation seems to me to point in the opposite direction of what you’re saying.

It’s never going to be resolved.

I think it was resolved, but then Johnson got elected, pardoned the entire Confederate South including Jefferson Davis, and rolled back reconstruction. And the south benefited from electoral success by counting the slave population toward their number of representatives despite disenfranchising them.

I don’t have a real end point or pin to this thought but there’s solvable electoral process things that could change the outcomes. The upsetting thing right now is disenchantment in the power of procedures to affect outcome which (1) in some sense is just an unfortunate truth but (2) in another sense is a self fulfilling prophecy as we lose touch of how processes can control outcomes.

The Millitary isn’t bound by some electoral laws of the universe, they just as easily could have said the vote was illigetimate.

Well I mean they are bound by laws, to the extent that laws have meaning. And responding to legal instruction would seem to validate the force and efficacy of the legal system, right?

I actually agree. I feel like there was a different ethos back in the earlier web that information density was a-ok. It feels like years more usable than just-in-time loading modules and constant clicking through pages.

Sorry but nothing was taken out of context. Your brother’s unjust experience being thrown in jail is terrible, but it doesn’t make it more right for Hunter Biden to have to go to jail. That’s eye-for-an-eye. If what you really mean is Hunter being frivolously prosecuted was miscarriage of justice, you could say that.

But it sounds like you’re specifically mad about the act of pardoning but you were 100% fine with him being jailed. You’re welcome to edit your original comment to clarify that you support the pardon, if that’s what you really meant this whole time.

Also it’s funny you mention the Daily Show here, because I did watch that episode. That clip said (1) Biden said he wouldn’t pardon originally, (2) in the news cycle context of Trump nominees, Dems could have lost moral high ground on law and order and (3) made fun of the 11 years timeline. It didn’t recount any specifics on crimes, real or imagined, extensive or otherwise.

I think it’s to neutralize arguments that this is specifically precedent setting. It’s actually working within the margins of established precedent, which is the opposite of what everyone is saying, and it’s why Trump is relevant here.

CIA starts pushing for regime change

And this is your reason why Biden could have restored abortion? Just trying to make sure I’m following how this connects to the original point.

I had a brother who was an accessory to a crime at 17 and went to prison for three years at 18, and that experience makes me viscerally angry that Hunter Biden is going to skate just because he’s a member of the lucky sperm club. This is

I’ve never understood the mindset of “I suffered so you should too”. The most convoluted example in recent member was “I worked hard for my degree so we shouldn’t forget student loans.”

I don’t like this way of thinking because it’s about eye-for-an-eye justice and it’s not interested in facts. Such as the fact that nobody ever serves jail time for Hunter Biden’s offense.

I’m sorry for your brother, our justice system is broken. But of all the takeaways, “keep Hunter Biden in jail” is to me a bizarre conclusion to pull from that.

The comments in this thread are completely insane. Nobody remembers anything, so let’s check in on the history of pardons:

Bill Clinton pardoned actual criminal Marc Rich.

George H.W. Bush pardoned actual criminals associated with Iran Contra.

George W. pardoned Scooter Libby for obstructing a CIA investigation.

Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio who did racial profiling in contempt of court.

Trump is about to pardon everyone from Jan 6th.

Ford pardoned Nixon and Andrew Johnson pardoned basically the entire confederate south.

So if you’re going to stand here and say that Hunter Biden’s pardoning is a singularly unique, precedent-setting moment in American history signalling the downfall of democracy? I’m going to hand you a bouncy ball and some orange slices and tell you to go play in the corner. You are not a serious person.

Edit: And for the dipsticks here who think a “pre-emptive” pardon is new… Ford’s pardon of Nixon was pre-emptive. So you’re only like 50 years and 3 months out of date on that talking point. Oops.

Drivel

That was to stop investigations writ large, it was not specific to Ukraine.

You might as well say Joe Biden pardoned his son for any crimes he commited on the moon. Or for being one of the definitely-real 2000 Mules, or for helping manufacture Covid in Wuhan.

He’s pardoned from all of those too. Which means he did them all, right? Biden is promoting all those conspiracies too!

it was also the minimum they could convict him with in hopes to stop the investigations before they implicated the president

Literally what are you talking about. This wouldn’t have stopped future investigations, and unless you’re suggesting Biden held Hunter Biden’s hand and helped him grasp the pen that checked that box, there’s no sense in which he was implicated.

That’s not something I see on masto but maybe I’m missing something

You can’t for a number of reasons. As other people have said this catastrophically underestimates the complexity of maintaining a code base for a browser.

they’re often 3–5 years behind other browsers in implementing new web standards

I don’t even think that’s remotely true. My understanding is that it’s on the order of a few months to a year, and it relates to things that are negligible to the average end user. They are edge case things like experimental 3d rendering. The most significant one I can think of is Webp, but they resisted adoption for principled reasons relating to Google’s control over that format and aggressive pushing of it, which is a good thing not a bad thing, and an important example of how rushing to adopt new standards it’s not necessarily just a sign of browser health but also an anti-competitive practice intentionally pushed by companies that have money to throw around for that purpose.

They wouldn’t be at the mercy of anything. That’s…how open source works.

That’s how Chromium works.

Anyone can see the source, but it doesn’t mean that anyone’s code makes it into Chromium, because Google picks and chooses. Chromium has a “reviewer pool” of Google developers doing all the picking and choosing. Getting into the reviewer pool takes months to years of building up a contribution history and being vetted by the Google team.

They’re completely at the mercy of how Google integrates things like DRM, or web standards that Google wants to push, like a deeply integrated into the browser and actively maintained with little to no alternative. The engineering overhead of sustaining and increasingly complex fork of Chromium is unsustainable and unless you have the development capability to compete, Google controls the destiny of any chromium browser.

You’re right about the fact that building an engine is hard, but Socraticly speaking, then why are there so many blink-based browsers and so few gecko-based ones? The answer is because blink is easy to embed in a new project and gecko isn’t.

Okay, that’s an interesting point. I mean, there are forks galore of Firefox so I’m not entirely sure I understand. But certainly chromium-based browsers have been getting more traction.

But wasn’t the original point something about how hard it is to make a browser?

And if I have this right you’re suggesting that it would be achievable for Firefox to make an accessible browser tool kit but they’re not due to ulterior motives?

I’m not sure I understand that, either in terms of motive or just impractical terms what it is you think they’re doing to make it hard to develop.

Hold on, why are we talking about this like it’s something that’s not happening? There’s all kinds of forks of Firefox.

Mozilla does not look any reliable

People keep saying this, but why? Because if it’s anything like what people have been saying in these Lemmy threads, good god.

Found the one sane comment in this entire thread.

Google may or may not stop paying Mozilla as part of the antitrust scrutiny. I have no idea if there’s actual reporting to this effect, or any form of legal analysis suggesting this is the most plausible outcome. If anything, antitrust scrutiny might lead to this funding being more secure and more robust.

So this might not happen, but this whole threads carrying on like it’s a fait accompli.

VLC I would say