Yes, but then he couldn’t be here just asking questions.

She’s someone I really want to deep dive, but I have never taken the time. Her monologue that begins at 1:24 minutes into this clip was my first exposure to her and I love that moment when you realize these awful examples she’s citing are not just awful in their own right, but that they drive home her undeniable point at the end, in response to what sounds like it was a bullshit question.

He’s saying it’s not going to change anything for anyone. The folks voting for Harris are voting for Harris whether they know he’s a Nazi or not. And the folks voting for Trump are voting for Trump whether he’s a Nazi or not. (And some of them because he’s a Nazi.)

and unfortunately the only way thats gonna happen is with a supermajority of democrats who have the cajones to just ram the shit through without playing games and without trying to get the republicans involved

Do even Dems talk about further improvements or tiptoeing any closer to single payer these days? It has been seeming to me the insurance lobby has things sewn up pretty tight.

Trump and Stochastic Terrorism - like peanut butter and jelly, salt and pepper, beans and rice.

Edit: I see I (and other top level comments) have the customary downvote from the silent maga that seems to pay attention to threads like these. Thank you buddy, until I see that one downvote show up with no counterargument to be seen I feel like my comments about Trump aren’t complete.

You don’t have kids do you? I think he’s terrible but absolutely agree with that response.

I do, and I agree with him about kids but disagree with him that it’s the only valid viewpoint to have. What’s “transformatively positive” for me may still have external impacts that someone else chooses not to inflict on the world, or may still be a choice someone chooses not to make because of general concern for the state of the world those children would be born into, or may not be “transformatively positive” for someone else for a host of other reasons.

Yep, it’s increasingly clear the collapse of the Republicans seems to have primarily accomplished pushing D further right. The Republicans invited all the crazies into their party and drove it into the ground, but somehow it’s Progressives that are out in the cold as a result.

gg conservatives

I live in a snowy climate and we did just fine before the invention of wireless starters. My car does not have one and we manage just fine.

That is a great QoL, but let’s not pretend this is necessary.

Yes, but we have had remote start without the internet for decades. It’s nothing but a cash grab. That’s what people are upset about here I think.

They took a feature that did not require the internet, then made it require the internet, for literally no purpose except:

But until, companies will push these hardware subscriptions because it nets them more money.

It’s one thing to withhold a feature. It’s another thing to overcomplicate a feature for the purpose of withholding it.

There is no need for the internet to use remote start

deleted by creator

Man, if “Microsoft is actively trying to take control of my hardware and prevent me from deciding how it is used” and “Linux has a learning curve and lacks market dominance to get hardware manufacturers to play with them sometimes” seem like equivalent circumstances to you, there is no number of iterations to this back and forth that are going to arrive at any common ground between you and I. I can only say good day to you.

Your statement suggest that if Windows is “trying to work against you” then Linux is “trying to work for you”.

That’s literally not what I said, nor what I implied. If you want to interpret it that way it’s your choice, but I’m not going to defend a statement I didn’t make and didn’t try to make.

You don’t escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.

I feel like you aren’t distinguishing between “problem exists” and “problem exists because the makers of my OS want it to exist.”

So why hack Windows to make it do what you want?

I literally said this was NOT the question.

I’m skeptical that irrevocably tying the two together is the only or best technological solution to wanting it in the search box.

It’s because Linux isn’t actually trying to work against you, even if it may feel that way to a noobie at first. Guaranteed this requirement exists to make Recall impossible to uninstall, and for no other reason.

The question isn’t “why take the time to hack windows” it’s “why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so.”

how the fuck could they have possibly done things in a way that makes explorer tabs depend on recall?

It’s very clearly an intentional move to keep it installed.

And as if it’s entirely reasonable for the maker of your OS to intentionally work against your ability to control your own hardware and what runs on it.

There is still the perception that it’s too cheap to be good in many cases. I’ve run into this fairly recently. It’s stupid, but it exists, and sometimes it exists in the people making the decisions.

Oh for sure, and I wasn’t suggesting otherwise.

I expect a more immediate and flagrant violent event in that case vs the other two though.

or he’s going to win (or be handed the win by the Supreme Court Rubber-stamping Service),

I agree with your comment in general and apologize for what may sound like a bit of a flippant reply, but I actually think what would worry me the most is if it it goes to SCOTUS and they somehow do NOT install Trump. I think the super-faithful deep-state-believers would lose their effing minds at that turn of events - this is where I would expect to see the violence ramping up the fastest.

That was a joy to read.

I’m sorry to tell you I am one of those people, as is my family. Every so often I have a moment of clarity about it, but it doesn’t last long.