Am I missing something? I only see the AI overview as an option after clicking the “try new features” lab logo. Are some versions of Google search forcing this feature currently?

Splintered media environment means we don’t actually have a shared set of facts to discuss with people from the other side anymore. We can’t have normal conversations when we can’t agree on the basic facts on the ground.

some of them? sometimes?

Have you ever seen an ork? They were created to fight and they live in a universe where there is only WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

ahem

Dey have a right good time krumpin’, ya git.

Sure, any sources should be checked. That said, do you have any particular reason to doubt the figure?

The two countries have declared a “no limits” partnership, have they not?

The Intel seems to be about CNC machine tool exports from China to Russia, and FT has also reported (here) on the increase, citing Russian customs data.

Are there any Russian or Chinese sources you know of that are reporting contradictory information?

From the article:

“She faced an array of charges along with her husband, Eric Chu Nap Kee, a billionaire Hong Kong real estate operator, and 85 co-conspirators, including lawyers and banking regulators from the capital of Hanoi, the seat of communist rule.”

So, she did bribe officials. Probably pissed off the wrong one, though.

I knew what this would be without question. Felt it in my bones. The old ways are still strong.

What?

What’s the old lingers?

Real moderates are mostly just low information voters who don’t spend much time thinking about politics to develop an ideology or world view.

The generally accepted political narrative is that these sorts of voters mostly just care about the economy.

Lots of people call themselves moderates but consistently vote Democrat or Republican and just differ from their party on a couple issues.

*Edited my language to be a little fairer about that second group

Maybe no one should see it?

There’s pretty widely documented evidence that slaughterhouse work is also harmful to mental health.

(Link is to sagepub)

If French troops were sent into Ukraine and were then hit by Russia, would that then trigger NATO agreements?

Article 6 says:

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

Aware this might be a situation where the spirit of the agreement ends up being more important than the legalese.

Nah, it’ll find food no problem. The legal liabilities are the real kicker.

Imagine being this much of a jerk over a webcomic

Explaining a joke never makes it funny.

Also, you’re calling a joke low-brow while also admitting you didn’t understand it.

Do you also need me to explain why that’s a self-own?

"In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.

‘You cannot enter here,’ said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. ‘Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!’

The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

‘Old fool!’ he said. ‘Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!’ And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.

And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of war nor of wizardry, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.

And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, in dark Mindolluin’s sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the north wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last."

-J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

I hear you. Hope the administration hears you too, for all our sakes.

I agree there’s a problem, and I agree about supporting progressive candidates when available.

I think this is being taken as the only option mostly because a lot of strong progressive voices sat out this primary.

Fair enough, to your point about people on Lemmy planning to make mistakes in November. I suspect those people aren’t the same ones voting uncommitted in the primary, though.

I mostly see those as motivated progressives trying to raise an alarm so Dems can course correct here. If Dems listened, they might give us more ammo to persuade those Lemmy users who aren’t on board.

I’d say the idea of using the primary to voice concerns about what’s happening in Gaza is the least harmful path for people who really care about stopping fascism in both countries. Dems need to really hear that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and voting uncommitted is literally the least you can do.

Dems stand to lose a lot of votes if they continue to be silent for the “hug Bibi” policy.

Also, sorry, but I don’t understand what alternative you’re suggesting for this course-correction. Can you clarify?

For the record, my proposal is to hash this conversation out during the primaries and then go all-hands on deck for Dems in November. Because we have to.

If we find people who regret it, do we then need to ban it? Is there a certain threshold of regretful people we need to meet?

Do you expect a lot of people to regret something that happened to them before they were capable of forming memories?

People did die…