Yeah. It isn’t about cheating, fairness, who got in a lane first. Isn’t territory to defend. We don’t have to enforce rules on each other. The traffic planners and road crews went through a bit of effort with like signs and cones and shit to tell us where they want us to merge. Zippering helps everyone go faster. Kinda why the planners want us to do it.

Old reruns of Alf.

I think you might be letting the dead off too easy just using the current population. You think we all just fell out of a coconut tree?

Simple, orderly zippering when a lane actually ends is the way. Wasting that useful pavement to create slower traffic and more traffic jam is insane and should be ticketed.

I presented a position on the topic. You ignored it in favor of discussing my comment’s tone.

As for the concept, I considered it decades ago. The math was the same then as now, and time has only added those decades of supporting evidence.

Ridicule of the ridiculous is warranted. And characterizing ignoring the reality of political systems as stomping one’s foot is the mildest of ridicule. It isn’t bullying. If you weren’t dismissing the facts in surewhynotlem’s comment, then I’m glad you accept them.

Yeah, people make up bs, other people spread it, old guy embarrasses himself saying it on tv, bomb threats. I have to be missing a step here.

Everyone should just ignore their actual incentives. Wow. What a wonderful solution to collective action problems; why didn’t anyone ever think of that before? Come on. I don’t believe you are that stupid.

They gave facts and you dismiss them with a label because of a little ridicule? Your ending suggestion doesn’t even do the job… we can grant you the impossible, sure all those people vote third party. Result, still a loss, and their least preferred major party wins. Whoops, all those voters we granted you picked different third parties. Because as little as they barely agreed on preferring one of the major parties, they agree on a ranking of the “third parties” even less. If you ask for us to grant the impossible, at least make it one that would work.

This is currently a multi-tiered 170,000,000 people system we are discussing. History and mathematics are against simplistic appeals for quick changes. Propose childish thinking, and it is little wonder you get ridiculed as acting childish.

Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn’t seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.

I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like “invaders” or “raiders”. Nice and clear to everyone.

B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.

I get what your point, and is a fair one. Except there is evidence that he wouldn’t have been voting their way, since he was thinking of leaving the court, or at least gave that impression to others to get a raise. Then the gift tap turned on…

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

Spree

Pocket Coffee

Dum Dums

You meant, pointless makes roundabouts traffic lights?

Is akin to people complaining about how the posts in a thread don’t all agree on something, so the forum and its participants are hypocritical.

I was too young to vote at the time, but the charts and graphs thing was rad.

Iirc, the future government (? I guess) weren’t trying to find the source to stop the release, but to get a pure sample to study so as to cure the disease in the future. The lady on the plane was there to get the sample.

If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.

Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).

Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.

Yeah. Someday appliances will probably try to get us to buy their art of electric sheep too.

Well. I’ve seen some construct a scenario in which some bits of kompromat were leveraged to shift the loyalties of and/or social circles around key players, using just what was public record.

Are We Ready For This Site’s Endless Feed of AI-Generated Piped Links?

A very hot hallway.

When it first took big bites out of Firefox, it wasn’t slight at all. I have only my hazy human memory on this, but some pals and I ran a test script at the time. Iirc, Chome would routinely load enough to start reading in 2 seconds while Firefox was more like 6 on average with our site list and went over 10 way too often to ignore.

It had been very easy before that to blame the sites for all the crud they were larding in. But it was like Google’s clean, fast search page compared to Yahoo’s “junk you don’t need” frontpage all over again. Chrome won on speed fair and square.

Thus ends this yarn by one internet fogey.