What difference does it make? Derps are derps. You never know what they're going to do, and there doesn't have to be rhyme or reason behind any of it.

They definitely are, and they're definitely irrational.

I recall a conversation here not long ago where some derp was making a big shit over what is, at the end of the day, a trivial amount of carbon with the incredibly stupid argument of "more carbon is more carbon". IIRC my response was something to the effect of "you know, if you off yourself, that would reduce carbon output too. Less carbon is less carbon." And that's to say nothing of rsilvergun, drinkypoop, et al who literally want to see bad outcomes for the neuralink patients simply because it's somehow connected to Elon. Pretty fucked up to want to deny any hope at all for patients with tetraplegia or locked-in syndrome for any reason at all, let alone an irrational hatred for just one guy who isn't even those patients, but I've come to expect that shit out of them since long before then.

Besides, the likely reason for this is the fact that most of these launches were for starlink. The current iteration of starlink isn't intended to be around for much longer, and what replaces it physically can't be sent to orbit with Falcon 9 or even Falcon Heavy.

Talking to your steaming cup again I see. Though if it has maggots in it, that means you're reheating it. Why would you do that? If anything, heating kills off the parasites you have such a soft spot for. And why wait for the maggots at all, especially considering they usually eat those same parasites?

Something I still can't figure out -- how does an algorithm know whether you're "left" or "right" to feed you that? Better yet, what do those words even mean? Ask two people, get two different answers. I've literally been told that I'm at the far end of both, and the people who say these things can never explain why they think that, and the few who even try to explain make claims about positions that they think I have, yet I don't actually have those positions.

The piece about ragebait that I read, by the way, indicated democrats, which does have a particular, easy to define meaning. Political parties always have a platform where they plainly state where they sit on just about every issue relevant to them. Doesn't mean every member follows it to the letter, but you can generally assume that they'll adopt the party's position unless they explicitly say or do otherwise. In my own lived experience, people who self-identify as democrats are actively looking for things to be outraged over, and that in turn leads to a few behaviors I've been observing over the last two decades, which I'll get to in a bit.

First, the word 'liberal' has been used, and in my opinion, incorrectly, here in the US. A common theme I've observed among people who call themselves that will often be something to the effect of "if we can save just one life by banning it, then it's worth banning it". Or in other words, err on the side of safety. That seems to me to be exactly the opposite of liberal. I personally prefer to err on the side of liberty. That's precisely why I'm very much in favor of all ten amendments in the bill of rights, including the first and second. But I don't see this behavior out of most self-described liberals. I think it's better when they call themselves progressive, because that, to me, perfectly describes how authoritarian they really are while simultaneously expressing that they believe being authoritarian is a virtue.

And I say that because of the observed behaviors. Let's start with TFS -- they want "safety", presumably by restricting speech. I can appreciate that to a degree, like for example to remove spam. But to these progressives, safety often includes protection from well-reasoned arguments, where the argument itself outrages to the point that somebody feels the need to kill Charlie Kirk, in the name of safety. Now, Charlie Kirk may be an outlier, even though you'll find no shortage of progressives who openly praise that whole ordeal, he's not the only one. Take antifa for example -- these are people who will shove a spear in your face without even knowing a single thing about you, other than the fact that you're not one of them, and it's ongoing. I only really see an active effort to denounce that on the part of those who call themselves right-wing, and occasionally somebody who (likely rightfully) calls themselves a liberal. That said, I don't believe safety is the word they're looking for in this (what sounds like a) blue sky clone. I believe what they're looking for is being isolated from any view incompatible with their own.

But back to outrage -- I recall during the airing of tiger king how the internet took outrage about the fact that some of the crew referred to that transgender dude as "she". When interviewed, he said "oh I didn't care when they did that, it's just some other people that were pissed off about it." Speak of Charlie Kirk, I watched the interview of the shooter's roommate/sexual partner, and the interviewer asked if the two of them spoke about trans rights, and apparently they never did. That's how most trans people are, by the way -- they aren't prone to outrage or even activism like internet trans are. Sure, they'll have a preferred pronoun, but they aren't even going to ask, let alone insist, that you put yours in all of your social media profiles and email footers. They just don't even care. But, you can rely on a democrat to be outraged on their behalf anyway. Shit, you can often rely on a democrat to get outraged over the word "latino" and correct you with "latinx", while not giving a shit that latinos themselves get annoyed when people say "latinx".

And that's to say nothing of the praise of Luigi Mangione, or frequent calls to "Louigi" somebody else, with seemingly no outrage or denouncement in response, and no censorship of it on bluesky or reddit. Basically, it's only unsafe when the moderators don't like it. But since you mentioned Nazis, I'm kind of wondering, what is it that self-identified Nazis are doing that nobody you associate with them, to use your words, "the right" do not denounce? You mentioned a march earlier, were they poking passers-by with spears? Blocking them from going about their day? I personally can't bring myself to denounce somebody for simply existing, rather only for what they do.

Also, notice that I use my words with care: Self identified in that you'll get no argument from them about that label, not just "will I think he's a Nazi" even if he doesn't even begin to meet the definition of the word. That's why I call some people progressive. Much as when I say or hear "socialism" I think literal Karl Marx described socialism, especially considering half of those who ask for it, literally want exactly that. Same with "defund the police". I don't play word games like progressives do, except when I want to troll them by playing and beating them at their own game under their own terms. Note also that I'm also comfortable applying the word "liberal" to you, because you're one of few people on slashdot who meet the definition of it. Or at least, unless I'm mistaken, you come off as somebody who prefers to err on the side of individual liberties. That is much the opposite of say the coterminous ass to mouth pair, drinkypoop and rsilvergun, aka dumb and dumber, who call themselves liberal but only ever speak against individual liberties, except for the very few that they consider morally acceptable, and outside of those few, want to force their morals on others.

Problem is, the world is literally not zero-sum. The only way I would agree with that world view is in the sense that, as other people get noticeably smarter, you get noticeably dumber. But that's just a coincidence as the world is literally not zero-sum -- the real cause of that is the tapeworm eggs in that steaming cup of diarrhea you keep sipping out of.

Except, unlike you, I have next to nothing in common with fascists. Like them, you call yourself progressive. Like them, you're authoritarian. Like them, you favor safety over liberty. Like them, you oppose free speech. Like them, you oppose free market economies.

Hold them accountable how, exactly? I have nothing to do with them. Furthermore, I live in Los Angeles county, there aren't even any to be seen here. And why me? What are you doing, exactly? Aside from throwing feces, of course.

Probably. But it would mean no more java for angle of sphere, and possibly no more linkedlists for him either. You'd have to pull both from his cold dead hands. Is that something you're prepared to do?

What does that have to do with me?

What difference does it make to you? As in, what would you do with one even if they didn't ban it? Robots can't pour your favorite drink in the particular way that you like it.

Because socialists never oppressed anybody. All those people in the gulag were just counter-revolutionaries. Everybody knows that individual liberties mean somebody, somewhere, might profit off of something, which is oppressive.

But seriously, a government wanting to get rid of cyclosporiasis isn't what I consider to be oppressive. Don't worry, nobody is coming for your scat porn collection.

You're right, what have billionaires ever done for anybody? Nothing! They just soak up more of that finite supply of cash each time the s&p rises. As soon as they move into the neighborhood, everybody around them gets poorer and poorer.

Yes, obviously the billionaire tax passed decades ago. Sergei Brin et al moved to Miami decades ago. I must be doing what you like to do: Create disinformation, deny reality. Clearly, nothing to see here.

Indeed -- historically, taxes aimed at and promised only to affect the wealthy have a strange way of tricking down to the rest of us. Like federal income taxes, for example. Meanwhile, the national debt continues to rise. So the obvious solution is more taxes for the wealthy, which induces more spending, so those taxes then trickle down to the rest of us to make up for it, then you complain about how the rich aren't paying their fair share according to your own arbitrary definition of what fair means, so more taxes only for the wealthy to then trickle down, ad infinitum.

I had this crazy idea once -- what if we just balance the budget instead of adding more taxes? Crazy talk, right? Obviously, more taxes is the only sensible approach.

Where? You mentioned coastal cities, so I gave you a map.

How so?