Haven’t read the book, but the title suggests things could have been different. That something happened to make things bad. If that’s the argument, it is completely wrong. Israel could have turned out no other way. Extermination is the only possible outcome of a colonial ethno-state.
I have a hard time believing that Gore would have made a difference on preventing 9-11, but I’m sure the response would have been different. Maybe no Patriot Act, maybe no Afghanistan War, almost certainly no Iraq War. That’s a big enough difference for me.
I’m used to AP titles being pretty dry, but they have started putting some bite in them.
I think it kinda doesn’t matter. If they can catch 95% of all users, that’s pretty close to total victory. Well more than enough to shut out access from Linux systems for most things without causing public backlash.
Apple, Microsoft, and Google account for roughly 95% of all human user systems.
Thermaltake Riing fan controller needs special python software. It worked fine from RPM in Fedora 42, but it hasn’t been updated for Fedora 43 yet. Tried installing with pip, and creating a systemd service, but it didn’t work immediately, and haven’t had time to fuss with it again. Probably just going to get new fans I can control through mobo.
Was using default Fedora gnome, but it started getting into hibernation loops. Swapped to KDE, but I’m not sure I cleaned up the gnome install perfectly.
What about coffee?
Qatar has much better relations with Iran than most Arab states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Qatar_relations
The way I’ve heard these minimum tax agreements described usually is where all the signatories agree to collect the same minimum corporate tax rate. The article says 15%. The US already has a 21% corp tax rate, setting aside tax incentives.
So what does it mean in this case to say that US corps are exempt? Does this mean that a US corp homed in the Caymans will pay a different rate than a French company in the Caymans? Or that the US is refusing to collect a minimum 15% after tax incentives?
I’m sure it’s spelled out in the text of the treaty, but maybe someone here has already done the digging.
Ukraine has been nuked? Or perhaps that’s read as “used” as a threat. In any case, the point was that the previous agreements did not provide any defense guarantees.
And what is article 4 in relation to the UN security council? There have been several security council meetings on Ukraine.
They promised to not attack them, not to defend them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Clearly Russia broke that agreement, but the US, UK, France, and China haven’t.
I don’t know much about Machado, but I do know that polls conducted under dictatorships are often not worth much.
Just in time for Grijalva to be sworn in
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/12/nx-s1-5606350/adelita-grijalva-swearing-in
Does anything other than the style of the skull and crossbones of his ex-tattoo suggest that he is in any way a Nazi or fascist?
Finally got my last PC switched off Windows. It feels good.
I think there may be more opportunity for success here than your argument seems to suggest.
I agree with the focus on inequality. The sense that society is fundamentally unfair has a corrosive and a radicalising effect on politics. People can react to it in very different ways, from redistribution to out-group scapegoating, but the underlying motivation is that people see that there is vast wealth available in our society and they’re still struggling.
Where I may disagree is that most people are non-ideological. Not everyone, but a healthy majority. They aren’t focused on the philosophical roots of a candidate’s policies. They care that the candidate
Many people can find that in candidates with a variety of ideological positions. The overlap between people who supported Bernie after the great recession, and went on to support Trump is bigger than one would expect.
So the equation is much less zero sum. You don’t lose one reactionary for every radical you bring into your camp. There really aren’t that many committed radicals and reactionaries.
The most toxic message today is the economic moderate. “Hey, it’s not so bad. Things could be a lot worse.” This is the zero sum relationship. You can’t keep both the people who are doing well and like how things work, and the people who are struggling and want the life they deserve. The material difference isn’t left vs right, it’s status quo versus change. There’s a lot more room for flexibility in the change camp.
Fucking cool, and also remember to leave your phone at home, or at least on airplane mode.
I’m just commenting on the book. I find YouTube videos pretty insufferable. I guess it’s a tangent.
The answers to these kinds of issues is never disclosures or ToS or admin vigilance. It’s always technical. Everything which is technically possible will become normal.
Lemmy is not popular because it is a well designed piece of technology. Frankly it’s a pretty naive implementation of activitypub. It’s popularity comes from being the biggest alternative around when Reddit pissed off a good chunk of its users.
The only way to control how data is used, is to make it technically or practically impossible to do so. Until then, expect all the data on the fediverse to be used in every way possible for any purpose, and act accordingly.