I’m not familiar with other states’ laws. They could also be fucked up, too.

This is how Wisconsin’s law is so fucked up: The three men he shot were not working together, were not coordinated, did not know each other. So, on the one hand, Rittenhouse may have subjectively felt under coordinated attack, he was not, but the subjective feeling is what matters for the law.

From Huber:s POV, he was trying to disarm a murderer. Maybe he felt threatened, too? But the law is so fucked, his POV doesn’t matter because he’s dead. In Grosskreutz’s POV, he was approaching an active shooter who’d just killed two men and trying to defuse the situation. When Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Grosskreutz would have been justified under the same law in blowing him away.

In short, the law incentivizes shooting first.

Okay, but I’m not on board yet. We start with the biggest crooks of all, the wage thieves, right?

Yes, that’s what I see, that’s clearly what he’s doing. The difference is that in 2016, he was able to retain in long-term memory what didn’t work, and had the mental flexibility to try out new bits to find things that did. Now, he keeps going back to the same dry well over and over again, in every speech, which is evidence that he’s losing it. (As further evidence, I’d point out that this is consistent with the amount of time it took him to grasp that he wasn’t running against Biden anymore.)

Hamas is Israel.

As Bill Burr said about the difficulty of raising kids vs. pets, you can compare anything. I could compare frisbees to Bundt cakes. They’re both round, but one has a hole in the center. See? I compared them.

So if I compare a genocidal, xenophobic ethno-state to a genocidal, xenophobic, theocratic ethno-state, well, that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

Have they been hunting Palestinian people across the globe? That’d make the Israeli regime worse than the Nazis, which is a bold claim. I think that, like the Nazis, they just want their targets removed from the land they claim as their own. They just happen to be fine with genocide to achieve that goal.

It’s gratifying to see President Biden quoted in an interview saying that he doesn’t think that The Biggest Loser will concede peacefully. It may be his job to order a former President detained for national security reasons, probably at Guantanamo Bay, so he’s inaccessible to the insurgent mob trying to free him.

He wanted a photo op of himself looking impotent and awkward? Maybe he’s as weird as they say.

How about a government-sponsored, non-profit authentication service? That is, it should be impossible to get a loan, open a line of credit, or anything else in somebody’s name, without the lending institution verifying that it’s actually on behalf of the named individual. Eliminate the security-through-obscurity technique of using bits of easily-leaked personal information as a poor substitute for actual authentication.

I mean, (as a comparative example) I have to go through an OAuth2 consent dialog to connect a third-party app to my email account, yet somebody can saddle me with huge debts based on knowing a 9-digit number that just about everybody knows? It’s the system that’s broken, tightening up the laws on PII is just a band-aid.

Deep state fake news!

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, either, but my preferred suspicion is that it’s aliens. They’ve tried a number of techniques, from implanting mind-control devices (Mitch McConnell and the way his face carries a look of horrified disgust at the things they make him do) to direct infiltration by putting one of their agents in an ill-fitting human suit (Ted Cruz). Ultimately, they seem to have given up the finesse approach, and settled on lobotomizing humans with existing personality disorders to create a RAID (redundant array of inexpensive dipshits) to simply overwhelm our system of government.

It’s the only explanation that really makes sense to me.

I just checked, the MBFC web site explains that it has an American perspective on left vs. right. The Overton Window in United States politics stretches from far-right (Republicans) to right-center (Democrats). From a lot of Americans’ perspectives, the BBC is a bunch of counterculture hippies.

Sorry, that I’m not certain of, since that’s an installer-specific thing. I think I’d try that option first, and see if the installer lets you choose the empty drive.

Just spitballing here, but if I read this correctly, you pulled the Windows drive, installed Mint, and then put the Windows drive back in alongside the Mint drive? If so, that might be the issue.

UEFI firmware looks for a special EFI partition on the boot drive, and loads the operating system’s own bootloader from there. The Windows drive has one. When you pulled the Windows drive to install Mint on another drive, Mint had to create an EFI partition on its disk to store its bootloader.

Then, when you put the Windows disk back in, there were two EFI partitions. Perhaps the UEFI firmware was looking for the Windows bootloader in the EFI partition on the Mint disk. It would of course not find it there. In my experience, Windows recovery is utterly useless in fixing EFI boot issues.

It’s possible to rebuild the Windows EFI bootloader files manually, but since you don’t mind blowing away both OS installs, I’d say just install Mint on the second drive while both of them are installed in the system, so the installer puts the Mint bootloader on the same EFI partition as the Windows one. With the advent of EFI, Windows will still sometimes blow away a Linux bootloader, but Linux installers are very good at installing alongside Windows. If it does get stuffed up, there’s a utility called Boot-Repair, that you can put on a USB disk, that works a lot better than Windows recovery.

Show of hands, did anybody think that this was not Russia’s goal in convicting these guys?

Paved roads don’t just naturally occur, though. That lifestyle is already an insane prospect, unsustainabke but for the large tax subsidy required to enable it.

I live in the U.S. That comment is 100% true, no matter where one lives.

I’ll jump in here, though I know that everybody is dug in, and this is akin to poking the hornets’ nest. Anyway, it’s a matter of differing ethical calculations. On one side is utilitarianism, which says that if your choice is between Nazis who will murder 5,000,000 Jews, and worse-Nazis who will kill 5,000,001 Jews, then it’s a moral imperative to support Hitler for the sake of that one person.

And that’s… not wrong. I can imagine that many people would make that call, if it were some sort of send-a-time-traveler-to-kill-Hitler-or-not scenario, when the outcomes are fixed. But imagine deciding to support Hitler and personally aiding the systematic murder of 5,000,000 humans when the alternative is speculative, still in the future, when it’s not assured. I think a lot fewer people would be willing to do it. How many more people would the hypothetical worse-Nazis have to kill to make that an appealing choice?

Everybody has got a moral line after which we can’t abide cold, utilitarian calculations. Maybe some people would help produce the Zyklon B on the prospect of saving one life. Maybe some would only do it if it was required to save humanity from extinction. Probably a lot of people would do it to save themselves. (Hello, 1930’s Germans!) That’s getting off-topic, the point is that everybody has a line, and some of us would just refuse to aid the Holocaust.

Furthermore, the reality is not nearly so black and white as it is usually framed here on Lemmy. We don’t actually know what a future dementia-addled President would do. He has the attention span of a toddler. He’s not a strong manager and has a lot of power-hungry underlings (like Vance); his administration might resemble a bucket of rats each scrambling for the top. We don’t know how the world would react to anything he’d do. Bottom line, it’s speculative at this point.

And on the other side, the usual framing casts Democrats as fixed in their positions and imperturbable as the faces on Mount Rushmore, or at least boxed-in politically. They’re not. President Biden has already felt the heat and slightly altered his position on Israel in a couple of instances. In fact, while we could change and abide their support of genocide, they too could change at any time to just simply not support genocide. They could even frame it (accurately, as I see it) as tough love, protecting Israel from itself and assuring its survival long-term.

That’s why we pressure the people actually in power now, who are the ones supporting genocide right now, because that’s democracy in action. Yes, to be fair, it might result in a worse outcome later, but that’s far from assured, and in the mean time, you’re telling people not to even try to stop evil.

The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn’t even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state’s presidential electors are appointed. That didn’t stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren’t allowed to decide how to run their state’s elections.

Now, you’d think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don’t pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who’s going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don’t know yet!