Depends on what was mined. A few sparks in an abandoned coal mine could result in a Centralia-style mine fire.

In other words, this is a great idea and Putin should search for abandoned coal mines near Moscow, preferably under valuable land, to house the new data centers.

If that were the problem, the bank would be saying "No PCs with the exception of those running our new banking application, downloadable via the Microsoft Store, that requires TPM 7.1 to run".

No the problem is they're cheap and would rather support easy-to-steal-phones exclusively than issue secure ATM cards and have a website.

> I can't say I know how long ago dinos walked around since none of us were there

They're still here. It's just mammals now dominate the land so there are very few land based dinos.

Regardless, 115M vs 65M (which is probably what you're getting at) isn't a massive change in the "Holy shit that survived a long time" category of things, and honestly, if something can last 65M years, it wouldn't be a surprise that it can also last 115M, especially given the mechanism of survival described here.

What war of Israel's did Biden fight again?

And was Biden in the Epstein list, or was there reason to believe the FBI and DoJ were continuing to investigate it without executive interference?

But bOtH sIdEs amiright?

When people say "150 million people support", it's generally a sign someone is a Russian troll. I've actually seen such people go further and say "146 million".

It's basically a slip of the tongue. Guess what country has a population of 146M?

(The rest of your comments about the Democrats are ludicrous BTW and suggest you've been wallowing in the right wing rabbit hole for too long, but I wanted to let you know where the 150M thing comes from. Maybe it'll make it easier for you to identify people who are trying to make you think that people wanting equal rights for women and other minorities are "misandrist" next time...)

Trump has been all over the map politically. The "Trump was once a Democrat" thing is popular in some circles, but he was a Republican between 1969 and 1999, supported the Reform Party from 1999 until 2001, was a Democrat then until 2009, and has been a Republican since 2009. So he was a Democrat for eight years, and a Republican for 47. During the Republican part of his life he tried to be George Bush Sr's running mate.

Was he a supporter of Clinton? I think he was friends with Clinton for a bit, or at least tried to cultivate him as a friend, but I can't find any evidence of him promoting Clinton while Clinton was in office.

GP said "independent" not "centrist".

Bernie Sanders is an independent and so are a lot of people who identify with his politics.

> Both the Democrats and the Republicans are fascists by the central part of Mussolini's definition

Yeah, this is all very well, but nobody gives a shit about "Mussolini's definition", because Mussolini, and Hitler, and Franco, went well beyond that. And nobody really gives a shit about that anyway, people can agree to disagree about centralizing power and so on.

Those three had one major thing in common: cruelty towards entire swathes of society that didn't deserve that, always against people who were powerless, justified by scapegoating for stuff that very often the regime itself was responsible for. And all to basically distract from the fact that Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco were looting their countries to make themselves incredibly rich.

If all they'd done was create Volkswagen and built highways to drive VW Bugs on, nobody would have given a shit. Orwell wouldn't have fought in the Spanish Civil War. Jesse Owens Olympic wins would have been lost to history in the same way that whoever won in... 1962 was. Hitler invading other countries would have been an issue, for obvious reasons, but at the end of that the question would have been "Why the fuck" not "Oh, this is the inevitable consequence of a government unable to solve its citizens problems, that invents some heroic image of itself under attack from "threats" to it among the least powerful, and once that stops being effective, distracts with unnecessary wars that fit in with that dynamic."

> Have you forgotten the miles-long lines of illegals trying to cross the border?

Uhm. What?

Do you mean the miles-long lines on the non-American side of people trying to get in? Because if they're not in the US, they're not "illegals".

Or do you mean there were miles-long lines of undocumented immigrants trying to get out of America? Because that would surely undermine the idea that Biden only went after people trying to get in, which is manifestly untrue, but I don't recall, nonetheless, there being lines of undocumented immigrants trying to get out either?

Do you guys even read your own nonsense before posting it?

Good to know both sidesists have always been with us (which is the true thing to learn from the anecdote, not "People who scapegoat innocent powerless groups and do performative violent cruelty on them in order to distract from the fact they're looting the country are totally the same as people who oppose all that, some of whom are violent." which remains as dumb today as it did five minutes ago when someone wrote it here.)

There were many on the left who overreached when they said both parties are the same and sat out 2024, maybe?

Something tells me that's not what the GP meant though. It was probably something like "The Democratic Party didn't ban trans kids from playing sports" or some stupid crap like that.

> Defunding the police.

Not ever a mainstream Democratic Party platform.

> but not the pronoun police and associated cultural weirdness backed by the force of the state

It is not a mainstream or minority Democratic Party platform, and never has been, for anything involving pronouns to be "backed by the force of the state". It is a position espoused by some Republicans however, as you've seen by them passing laws preventing people from, with the backing of medical professionals, putting their current visual and lived gender on their driver's license. So you've gotten this completely back assward as usual.

> include mandatory anti-white, anti-male, and anti-straight preferences in contracting and hiring practices.

Again, not a current mainstream Democratic Party platform. In the past, some Democrats have advocated for affirmative action, which could be, if intentionally interpreted in bad faith, be seen sort of as that (but as affirmative action purely aims to address deficits and ceases to have a role once equality is met, is not), but certainly modern Democrats aren't espousing that.

And again, this allegation appears to be purely a mirror image of Republican policy: Republicans are, in fact, arguing that recruiting practices should be actively biased towards white males. See their attacks on "DEI", policies designed to redress diversity inequalities by reducing sources of bias in hiring, from unnecessary bans on former drug users, to uses of recruiting tools that automatically bias in favor of white males.

> Mandatory electric cars.

I think you RWNJs should make up your minds here. Are we all forcing people to use cars or trains? Regardless, it's neither. But it has been Republican policy for... as long as I can remember to place defacto bans on forms of transportation other than gasoline cars. So yet again, you've chosen an allegation the Republicans are guilty of (but with the bias in reverse) rather than anything in mainstream Democratic circles.

Almost like projection is a key feature of conservatives.

So to summarize:
- Both Republicans and Democrats keep increasing funds for policing despite the lack of effectiveness a 100% social spending on police seems to give. No mainstream Democrats are associated with the phrase "defund the police" and don't.
- The Democrats do not have any policies to enforce pronouns. The Republicans have been literally passing legislation to force people to use specific and arbitrary pronouns.
- The Democrats are anti-bias in recruiting. Republicans are pro-bias and believe employers should be forced to implement policies that discriminate against minorities.
- The Democrats are more likely to believe in choices in transportation, housing, and so on. Republicans are enforcing mandatory suburbanization and gasoline car usage and include politicians, including Trump himself, who have called for the latter.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Well, what's even more absurd was that "Data centers" is already a term used for the similar but not the same facility that provides regular computing resources, either for cloud providers or for companies that want to keep their own hardware in a remote server room.

This fact had a lot of derailers protesting against anti-Data center people as being "aNtI-eMaIl".

Now the derailer turd sophists have one less quiver in their arsenal (emphasis on the first four letters) to derail anti-AI-facility buildings. So they're going to lose shills and corporate bootlickers.

It seems... self defeating.

So, naturally, I'm all for it.

That's not what anyone is talking about here. The NYT has no objection to its website being viewed in webbrowsers.

Let me guess, you're one of the people that responds to the current hostility against giant new AI data centers, shorthanded to "data centers", as people being opposed to email, right?

> I didn't look at ads when print was a thing either. Digital is no different.

OK, you all need to make up your mind here. Do you want to pay for content or not? Because back when "print was a thing" newspapers revenue was a mix of advertising and... wait for it!... SUBSCRIPTIONS!