I’m torn. If our country ever goes back to normal, I’d love to be able to show my grandkids a Trump Bible 50 years from now. I like to think that they’d be shocked by the audacity of it - by the fact that a guy peddled something so blasphemous and still locked up the religious vote. But I know Trump is probably getting royalties on the sale, so I guess they’ll just have to take my word for it.

When my wife told me what he said I assumed it was an onion article. When she said it was real I assumed it was taken out of context - surely there was some policy proposal behind these comments, like a new federal stipend for caretakers. Nope - he genuinely seems to believe that the government’s role in childcare is reminding parents that they can ask friends/family for help, as if there’s a struggling parent out there who needs to hear this. I really don’t understand who he’s trying to reach with these comments - it’s like reminding homeless people that they can panhandle if they’re struggling, which is an obtuse way of saying “fuck you, you’re on your own.”

I’m torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you’re describing, but I really don’t know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it’s vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn’t been updated in 250 years is insane.

I’m with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.

Cheney is a fascinating example of how you can support every conservative policy and still be considered a RINO for suggesting that Trump shouldn’t be in charge. She’s proof that you can’t be a Republican today without kissing the ring.

Didn’t the war in Iraq have overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress? Bush was guilty of acting on bad intelligence, but the country as a whole was guilty of succumbing to bloodlust and misdirected vengeance. The Patriot act also had strong bipartisan support. Gay marriage was so unpopular at the time that even Obama had to feign opposition to it when he first ran in 2008. Bush was a bad president IMO, but it’s hard not to be a little sympathetic when you consider the context of these decisions. The one good thing I’ll say about Bush is that he never seemed self-serving, so for that reason alone I don’t doubt his sincerity over the regret he seems to show for some of these things.

Yes.

Withholding support to Israel would embolden the opposition here at home and have huge geopolitical implications abroad. I won’t argue over whether or not it’s the right thing to do, but I definitely wouldn’t characterize it as a “win” for any US administration.

From a political perspective it’s amazing how much of a lose-lose this situation has been for Biden and now Harris. Half the country is calling him “Genocide Joe” for supporting Israel while the other is calling him antisemitic for supposedly abandoning Israel. To be fair I think one side is arguing in bad faith and these aren’t equally valid positions, but regardless not a soul in this country seems to be content with our current approach - even if it’s intended as some sort of compromise.

I disagree with you but respect your honesty - you don’t deserve the downvotes. I’m sure you’re not the only one jaded enough by this situation to cast a protest vote.

Trump’s cognitive deficiencies are old news, whereas the Biden we’re seeing now is unrecognizable from the last campaign. Given the narrow margin Biden won by last time, that should be concerning to his supporters. You really think this is a media conspiracy?

Honestly at this point the DNC can pick someone - anyone - and I’d be fine with it.

I agree that we have no idea if he’d actually go through with reforming the court if given the opportunity - I’m just pointing out that Democrats have openly called for reforming the court, on the presidential debate stage, as recently as 2019. It shouldn’t be viewed as a non-starter - especially when these ideas were coming from the so-called moderate wing of the party.

On the M4A topic, it’s crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn’t be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.

Reforming the Supreme Court was basically Pete’s thing during the primaries. He was talking about it years before Roe, Chevron, and absolute immunity. He suggested adding 6 more judges, 5 of which would be rotating appointments by the other 10. It’s a shame Biden won’t do anything about this - especially when there are other leaders in the party who would.

Reminder that this is a nuanced issue. Some people got fuck all to show for their student loans and need our help. Some people got exactly what they paid for. Don’t be fooled into thinking we’re all in the same boat, or that targeted relief is too complicated. I bring this up because so many advocates for forgiveness are scaring off potential allies with an all-or-nothing mentality, allowing people like Lindsey Graham to rally against a straw man. This should be about helping people who need help - plain and simple.

For thousands of years the ruling class has tolerated the rest of us because they needed us for labor and protection. We’re approaching the first time in human history where this may no longer be the case. If any of us are invited to the AI utopia, I suspect it will only be to worship those who control it. I’m not sure what utility we’ll have to offer beyond that. I doubt they’ll keep us around just to collect UBI checks.

• Cloud providers have financial incentive to push microservice architectures
• Cloud providers give corporate consultants statistics like “microservice architectures are proven to be X% more likely to succeed than monolithic architectures”
• Cloud providers offer subscription-based tools and seminars to help companies transition to microservice architectures
• Companies invest in these tools and seminars and mandate that all new projects adopt microservice architectures

This is how it went down with Agile at my company 10 years ago, and some process certifications and database technologies before that. Based on what I’m hearing from upper management microservice are probably next.

From my perspective the corporate obsession with microservices is a natural evolution from their ongoing obsession with Agile. One of the biggest consequences of Agile adoption I’ve seen has been the expectation of working prototypes within the first few months of development, even for large projects. For architects this could mean honing in on solutions in weeks that we would have had months to settle on in the past. Microservices are attractive in this context because they buy us flexibility without holding up development. Once we’ve identified the services that we’ll need, we can get scrum teams off and running on those services while working alongside them to figure out how they all fit together. Few other architectures give us that kind of flexibility.

All this is to say that if your current silver bullet introduces a unique set of problems, you shouldn’t be surprised if the solutions to those problems start to also look like silver bullets.

OP says you can sync memories both ways - easy solution is to just take turns.

One clone so that I can be a stay-at-home dad without losing my income. Finally finish grad school and fix up the house. Show my kid the world when they get old enough to appreciate it. Get a second job once they start school - something to get me outside, or working with people face-to-face. That would be amazing.

It’s certainly possible that Meta has a plan to destroy the fediverse with Threads, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that they’re just doing this because they can. If their plan was to take over the fediverse from within, and that plan hinged on instances not defederating out of caution, then it’s off to a poor start. I might just be totally naive but this feels more like them testing the water by opening their doors to the fediverse - I don’t know if they know what happens next.