The Russian conscripts that shot their conscription officer upon being handed their papers would argue otherwise.

This is the stuff that burns through air defences prepping for the f16s! Also great that they’re sending some more AA along with it!

I absolutely agree that newspapers shouldn’t be allowed to label someone as a criminal before they have been sentenced. My point is that there’s a difference between reporting indisputable facts about an event, and reporting that those facts make someone a criminal.

Reporting that “Video shows person X shooting person Y”. Is different from reporting “Person X committed murder by shooting person Y”, because in the second case you are reporting that they committed a crime, when they may be acquitted of murder in court for any number of reasons. Reporting that “Person X allegedly shot and killed person Y according to this video” makes it seem like there’s any doubt about whether that happened.

I see the point, but still think it’s a misuse of the word “alleged”. There is no doubt here that the teacher was strangling the kid: That part is on video, and is true whether or not they’re convicted of a crime for it. Whether the strangling was a crime, or whether there were mediating circumstances that make it not a crime is what remains to be determined.

I just think we should be able to separate between “person allegedly committed a crime”, which needs to be proven in court, or “person did XYZ and there is video evidence and multiple independent eyewitnesses accounts of it”, which shouldn’t need to be proven in court.

Exactly! I mean… some reptiles eat eggs, so we could be talking about something that happened before our ancestors had developed the concept of an ass. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think that eating eggs may be as old a concept as eggs themselves. In that case, the first egg-eaters evolved alongside the first egg-layers, and were eating proto-eggs before even the modern egg existed.

Imagine if zebras started evolving very tough placentas over time, and the foals started lying around in them for a couple days before popping out: Lions would keep eating newborn zebras, and no single lion generation would notice that they were slightly different from 1000 years prior. Give that development a million years or whatever and you now have egg-laying zebras and egg-eating lions!

I would go even further: Our primitive ancestors likely descended from proto-humans that descended from primates that were already foraging eggs. Some modern apes and other mammals eat eggs as well, we’ve likely been eating eggs since hundreds of thousands of years before the first human evolved.

In a sense, that line of though is interesting: When we think of “observing other animals eating something, and then deciding to eat it”, we’re almost implicitly forgetting that we are descendants of exactly those types of animals, that “just know” what is safe to eat, and that some of the knowledge we have about food is potentially passed down from even before the first primates evolved.

At this point, it almost seems like Ukraine is happy to let Russia keep funnelling troops and equipment into Crimea, and just use it as a huge kill-box with nowhere to hide

I’m here to say that if there’s snow, skis win on practicality. Almost every winter, there’s at least one day when you will have some people skiing to work in Oslo, a city of 700 000 inhabitants, with a metro system. Because when there’s 10 cm of snow in the streets, skis are the quickest and easiest way to get anywhere.

I have to admit: If you (semi-)regularly use floating point comparisons in programming, I don’t know why you would ever expect 0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3 to return true. It’s common practice to check abs(a - b) < tol, where tol is some small number, to the point that common unit-testing libraries have built-in methods like assertEqual(a, b, tol) specifically for checking whether floats are “equal”.

You should pick up a history book and talk to some real breathing people for a change.

In a lot of countries you can be held legally accountable for not helping someone, and your negligence leads to death or injury. I think that’s quite similar to refusing to vote, when voting can save lives.

Your vote does effectively pass to the next person in line, because you not voting means their vote becomes a larger proportion of the total. By not voting you are blindly accepting the will of others, without using your possibility of affecting the outcome.

Saying that there are no legal requirements for a primary is not a good argument for abstaining from voting in them. By your own arguments, the candidates want votes, and the party wants to nominate a candidate that has wide support. Voting in primaries is, if nothing else, a clear way of signalling what candidates you want.

Possibly a poor translation from my side: I’m referring to the “head office” of the university, i.e. the group of people under the direct leadership of the principal, who have the highest administrative authority at the university.

I’m just saying you should consistently vote for the candidate you prefer. That includes voting for the “far-left” (no such thing in US politics) democratic candidates when they pop up. I would also argue that it is never the time to “protest” by not voting, as that just signals that you don’t care who wins.

It’s really quite simple: It’s always the ideal time to vote for the best (least bad) candidate. It is never the ideal time to abstain from voting because you dislike both candidates, unless you legitimately don’t care who wins.

No: Every single election where a more left-leaning choice is pitted against a less left-leaning choice is the place to do that. If enough people consistently vote for the more left-leaning choice of the two, politics is pushed to the left.

By not voting, you are saying that you don’t care which candidate wins. In this case, the choice is between a literal fascist and a more or less far-right (globally speaking) candidate. Of the two, one is clearly more left-leaning (less far-right) than the other. So you vote for that one. That’s how you make a difference.

This is a false equivalence though: In the thought experiment, you denying to split ensures that none of you get anything. In this real-world scenario, you refusing to make a choice between more or less genocide increases the chances of “more genocide” winning. By not making a choice, you aren’t punishing the person proposing the deal, you’re just allowing someone else to make the choice for you.

There are elections in which it makes sense to vote against a candidate like Biden: In every election where there is a better choice on the table. That includes primaries, it includes backing candidates opposed to him in local elections, and elections for the house and senate. That is when you make your stand.

By not voting, in any specific election, you are simply giving up your right to have an impact on the outcome. That means that if the outcome is an increase in people killed, you are responsible, because you had the option to save lives, and chose not to take it.

By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are not signalling that you accept the lesser evil, but simply that you believe it is the best possible choice of those given. You can signal that you dislike the lesser evil by voting against it when an even lesser evil is on the table (or, preferably, something actually good).

Also, it’s not like “the democrats” tactically choose a candidate that they think the voters will reluctantly accept. The candidate is specifically the person that got the most votes in the primaries. The candidates in the primaries are typically people who got enough votes to be either governor or senator or something previously. By consistently voting for the better candidate in all those elections, you can actually have an impact on the presidential nominee, and signal your beliefs to the political party, without running the risk of having a wannabe dictator become president.

A professor at my university tried that, but the students quite quickly made a huge fuss, got the principals office involved, and the universities lawyers informed said professor that what she was doing was illegal, and that she should stop before she got any more trouble. She stopped.

Drake is fucked, because Kendrick has already dropped the Mr. Morale album, where he raps about his own shortcomings and relationship issues and how he’s worked to fix them. Whatever Drake says about him, it’s something he’s already been open about working to fix.

Drake on the other hand is just dumbly denying that he’s done stuff everyone can see that he’s done, or just not addressing what Kendrick is saying at all.

Well, yes. That’s the thing: If you give up, you drown, if you keep going parallel, you never know when the tide might turn. If you’re 24 (that’s how I interpret your previous comment), you’ve only had the option of voting in one presidential election so far. In that election, progressives completed the monumental task of voting out an incumbent proto-facist. And for all of Bidens flaws, there can’t be much doubt that a lot has been heading in the right direction. Of course, there’s still a huge task ahead, but the previous election shows that Trump can be kept out of office, and the past three years show that things can get better.

Step 1: Forgiving student loans, Step 2: Working to reform the system.

Step 1: Pardon certain drug-related crimes, Step 2: Work to reform drug laws.

Step 1: Massive infrastructure investments, Step 2: More investment in public goods

Step 1: EO’s to protect reproductive rights, Step 2: Legislation to do the same.

My point is this: Biden has shown that he is working to make progress, and that he can actually get stuff done. The problem is that there’s a whole lot that needs doing, much more than anyone can do in two terms. We need to keep getting the best option into office, and we need to spend the next four years to ensure that the best option next time is better than Biden is now. If Trump gets four years, I fear that we’ll have a near impossible job.

Nice! Hoping we get more videos of Russian assaults being wrecked by artillery now that the most recent US aid package finally got through and these shells start arriving at the front! Also waiting impatiently for Europe to pump up its production a good deal more notches

To be fair: Europe spent 20 years and massive resources trying to improve the situation in Afghanistan, failed spectacularly, and were told very clearly by the Afghans that they should leave. I wouldn’t judge them for taking that message to heart and finally leaving Afghanistan alone.