That doesn't change the fact most of the crime happens in the cities, and cities are far far more likely to be run by democrats. Which was the original point.

The person I replied to specified murder rate, those stats are not misleading. And the person I was replying to didn't provide citations either, so it's interesting that you objected to my post instead of his. But in any case the murder rate stats were not cited by either of us because they are easy to find and those numbers are not in dispute. After all you yourself several claims without citation:

"Republican-run cities have a significantly higher crime rate than the states they are in as well." statistics and citations?

Or how about "A lot of crime occurs in cities because there are more potential victims." statistics and citations?

"For example, in this country wage theft exceeds all other theft combined." Source?

But please don't bother looking those citations. Lets not be pedantic and just admit that your objection has nothing to do with the lack of citations.

And finally, I have no idea why you would bring up wage theft estimates in a discussion about murder rates. Especially if you're objecting to the quality of the data.

He said Democrat cities not states:

And he is right. Most of the major population centres of the states you listed are run by Democrats. And those Democrat run cities have usually have a significantly higher crime rate than the Republican run state as a whole:

Louisiana (12.4 per 100k) - Republican run, New Orleans (39.50) - LaToya Cantrell (D)
Missouri (9.8 per 100k) - Republican run, Kansas City (30.93) - Quinton Lucas (D)
Nevada (9.1 per 100k), Las Vegas (12.60) - Carolyn Goodman (I)
Maryland (9 per 100k), Baltimore (55.77) - Brandon Scott (D)
Arkansas (8.6 per 100k) - Republican run, Little Rock(24.8) - Frank Scott Jr. (D)
Alaska (8.4 per 100k) - Republican run, Anchorage (9.12) - Dave Bronson (R)
Alabama (8.3 per 100k) - Republican run, Huntsville (3.3) - Tommy Battle (R)
Mississippi (8.2 per 100k) - Republican run, Jackson (71.6) - Chokwe Antar Lumumba (D)
Illinois (7.8 per 100k), Chicago (24.13) - Lori Lightfoot (D)
South Carolina (7.8 per 100k) - Republican run, Charleston (11.3) - John Tecklenburg (D)

Schools are public service, provided by the government, and funded by the taxpayer. The public is perfectly justified in demanding that the schools they are funding be apolitical and refrain from sexualizing their children. Far left indoctrination doesn't belong in the classroom anymore than bible study does.

Free speech is an ideal born from the Enlightenment. It's key element of modern western democracies. That's why it's protected by the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People are completely justified in wanting this ideal up held on social media.

"Freeze peach" on the other hand is a pejorative invented by the regressive left that seeks to mock and undermine one of our essential freedoms. Spouted by people who want to censor public debate and suppress voices other than their own. They may claim they only want to silence hate and extremism, the problem is they think everyone they disagree with falls into that category.

Few countries are large enough to get the kind of distribution you are talking about. And it would require building electrical infrastructure to shift electrical power on a scale and distance far beyond what we have today.

Those long 20 year estimates are exactly why we need to talk about them. Countries like Japan, China, and South Korea get their plants built in less than half that time. It's the anti-nuclear lobbying and lawfare that makes nuclear so slow and difficult to built, not the stations themselves. If the green movement truly believes that climate change is a crisis then they need to stop blocking one of the few reliable carbon free energy sources we have.

Because while occasions where wind produces zero energy are rare, occasions where wind energy does not match demand is quite common. The current system uses weather predictions to estimate how much wind power will be available. And have alternative sources ready to compensate.

So yes you run a system on a mix of wind and gas. But you need to stop calling it "carbon free" because the system still relies on carbon based energy.

Nuclear power stations have multiple reactors, modern ones typically have between 4 and 8 reactors. Maintenance and upgrades are planned ahead to ensure that enough reactors are operational to meet demand.

If California's government honestly believes that climate change is a "crisis" this is a no-brainer. It makes zero sense to be shutting down carbon-free energy sources while continuing to operate carbon emitting ones.

But of course political rhetoric rarely matches reality.

The main benefit of systemd is that it replaces a messy collection of bash scripts that were inconsistent across distros, who's start up order was based on the filename, and had to be run to completion before starting the next one.

With systemd the distros get: 1) Consistency across distros. 2) Declarative instructions on how to start, stop, restart, what user to run as, dependencies, environment, and security settings. 3) A system of dependencies so you can ensure that services are started in the proper order. 4) Because you know what the dependency tree looks like you can start some services in parallel making boot times faster.

SysV is like installing software with install.sh or just extracting a .tar.gz file. Whereas systemd is like using .deb packages.

The software with the vulnerability, networkd-dispatcher , is not part of systemd. Its a plugin that some distros have included.

This is not a Linux flaw. Nor is it a systemd flaw.

There is no free market for electricity.

The cheapest option, coal is banned. Solar, wind, and thermal are heavily subsidized. And hyrdo is heavily restricted for environmental reasons.

Really the only two options that actually compete are natural gas and nuclear, with natural gas being the clearly cheaper option. Everything else is decided by government intervention.

They don't want a less racist way to admit students. They want a student body representative of the population. Even if that means creating different standards for different groups.

If rail really was so much better than rail as people here are claiming, then why do these flights exist in the first place? Everyone should be taking the superior rail option leaving no demand for these short haul flights. And without demand the airlines wouldn't fly those routes. And there would be nothing for the French government to ban.

I'm happy to see governments invest in any kind of infrastructure, including rail. But don't tell me that your solution is so good that the government needs to ban the competition.

If the flights have been banned by the government, it's not really a choice is it?

Why would be they be conflicted? Ted Cruz proposed this back in October and people here on slashdot attacked him for it, calling it and him stupid. If anything it's the liberals who originally mocked this idea who are conflicted.