I think that's fair, although it feels like the tone has gotten harsher.

Definitely. I'm actually already seeing a little of that in late August. Nights are getting down to ~62F, which is managing to cool the house to the high 60s. I'm wondering if I could get a higher-volume fan for the laundry room to increase the air flow... I'm sure that by the end of September we'll have nights in the 50s but days will still often reach the mid-80s. That's when another benefit of having it automated kicks in. If I were just opening a bunch of windows before going to bed, there would be a period of time when the house got too cold at night. With the automated system, when the house gets to 62F it turns the fans off.

Of course, as we get into winter, I pop the laundry room fan out and fill the gap with an insulated pillow of the type they sell for filling swamp cooler vents.

Speaking of swamp coolers... those have historically been fairly effective in Utah, thanks to the dry air. My first house had just a swamp cooler and it was honestly fine. I've actually thought that it might make sense to have all three: passive cooling, swamp cooler and central air. With a smart system deciding which to use when. You don't want to use the swamp cooler a lot on days when the A/C might need to run, because it raises interior humidity, which the A/C then spends a lot of effort extracting. Maybe... have to consider the cost of buying and installing the swamp cooler.

Insofar as you're being honest about being a libertarian, I genuinely apologize.

Hairsplitting semantics and pretending not to understand idiom are such standard leftist tactics, I admit, I presumed.

To your point, then: Auschwitz was legal, according to German Criminal Codes in 1942. So... to you, not "murder"? Yes, I think this is a stupid point to make and a stupid argument, but you seemed to assert a narrowly-defined concept of murder, just seeing how far you're willing to go? If you are consistent, and affirm that being legal, the Holocaust wasn't murder, I guess you ... win? I would absolutely concede the point.

Do you believe children should be exposed in any way to adult sexuality?
Particularly hypersexualized dancers with sexually suggestive names, acts, gestures, themes?

The fact that you're even asking suggests you're either
- deeply disingenuous or
- a pedo yourself

The answer, in case you're searching for it? It's NO. Just LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. They don't need to be groomed, thanks.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

"....The performer in drag was none other than the president of the PTA at P.S. 96., Frankie Quinones. Video shot by Morales shows him twirling and gyrating to a song by '80s Puerto Rican performer Iris Chacon.

On an event flyer, the drag show was only billed as a âoeSpecial Surprise Performance!â

Morales questioned what organizers were thinking.

âoeHe got on all fours on the choir stand, he laid on his back, raised his legs, opened his legs wide open. What made you in your head think that was appropriate for elementary school students?â Morales said."

It's possible. My prediction is that they're not going to find any evidence of collusion, that all of the DRAM manufacturers simultaneously shifted production to AI chips in response to clear market demand, not because of any agreement.

Yes, there was collusive price fixing 25 years ago, but the companies got slapped pretty hard for it -- not just cash fines but prison sentences for executives. I think that prior experience makes it less likely that they're colluding now, not more likely. Once burned twice shy.

I didn't care what adults do to/with each other, not even faintly but I draw the line at degeneracy with children and kinks that involve them. Even (shudder) with their parents enthusiastic consent.

If it's just about representation and being seen, why aren't they lobbying to dance in front of the elderly?

Thank you, I appreciate your post.
Next time I need to demonstrate to someone
- how the Left seems to treat words like magical spells
- how they like to pretend they don't understand something
- how slashdot has been ideologically captured .... Now I have a single, succinct post to show them. Very neat.

Ok, I'll bite that you're arguing in good faith.

Do I need to quote all the times Democrats - and in particular their leadership - have called conservatives or gop politicians literal Nazis? Racists? Pedophiles (although that seems to be less common, as it starts to become a lifestyle choice for redditors)?

You've used them so repeatedly they've become meaningless even to you.
This is the irony & the hypocrisy of the left in active play: it's fine to insult the right because you agree with it, but a little mud flying back your way has you wetting your panties.

A video on their website. Looked like even with the battery cover off, there was a thingie you had to screw to fasten the battery in. Again, not a bit deal at all. Didn't look any more (and probably a lot less) onerous than the screw for a battery cover on a children's toy. Hm, maybe I just answered my own question ...

One correction: It didn't have anything to do with discovery. Discovery was complete when the judge put the trial on hold to allow the deal to close. What happened was that Musk realized that proceeding with the trial was dumb because he was going to lose and be forced to complete the transaction regardless, and possibly on worse terms than he could get by just doing it. Avoiding the public spectacle of the trial was also a consideration, I'm sure, but not discovery... 10 days before trial discovery is already done.

"I'm totally fine with seeing political positions that I disagree with."

Bullshit.

"That's how political discourse in a democracy is supposed to work."
Yes, and your opinion isn't sacred. For every right wing post that hurt your precious feelings, I can show you ten insisting trannies have the right to do burlesque in front of little kids, women insisting on the right to murder their womb fruit, or gleeful at the murder of Charlie Kirk.*

*hint: yes, that was deliberately inflammatory choice of words because leftists are so amusingly emotional. Your TWO posts saying basically the same thing in this thread alone proves that, cupcake*.

As Justice Douglas wrote in 1949: "...[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."

Doesn't sound like you actually want to hear anyone that disagrees with you. You make that abundantly clear.

Insisting against all obvious signals that "but I want to hear people from the other side" is simply an outright lie.

How do you believe people are so stupid that you believe they'll believe you? Are you that used to just talking to your reddit friends?

That's too strong. Appeasement does work sometimes... when it works we usually call it "compromise" or something similar, though. There's a book "Appeasement in International Politics" that examines a large number of cases where it worked and where it didn't. The author lays out a number of criteria that influence whether it works.:

1. When the opponents aims are limited and grievance-based.
2. When the concession addresses the grievance
3. When the conceding party is strong, so the concession is a choice
4. When concessions are reciprocal and limited.

That said, Trump's aims are never limited. That has become clear. It wasn't necessarily obvious that was the case early on, though.

Maybe? There are some pretty good arguments that it did pan out in 1939. It didn't prevent the war, but it gave the British time to build out radar coverage and ramp up production of hurricanes and spitfires. Britain may actually have been better off going to war in 1940 than they would have in 1939, so appeasement may well have provided a useful delay.

It's both. Advertisers very much want to advertise things you want to buy, to either trigger a purchase that you were holding off on and might forget about or (more often) to direct a purchase to a specific product or brand, rather than a competitor's. Advertisers also want to push purchase ideas to you, to tell you about things you might want to buy that you didn't know about, or often just to build brand awareness or brand vibes so that if at sometime in the future you're interested in something, you'll pick theirs.

Advertisers really don't want to pay money to show you ads for stuff that you simply won't ever buy. That's a waste. And the ad algorithms often screw it up and deliver wasted ads. That lowers the value to advertisers, making them willing to pay less per ad, which lowers the value to ad distributors. They'd very much like their ads to be better.

Larry Page used to say that the project of building good advertising wasn't done until every ad resulted in a purchase. That would actually be a kind of ad nirvana for advertisers, who would be willing to pay a lot for a guaranteed sale, ad networks, who could charge a lot for an ad, and even consumers, who would never see any ads except for things they wanted to buy (even if they didn't know they wanted the thing until they saw the ad -- indeed those would be the most valuable ads, since they would convert a guaranteed non-purchase to a guaranteed purchase).

(Larry's comment ignored brand awareness advertising, obviously).

The status quo is obviously very far from that situation.

Shutter? You think they're going to spend $500B on fabs and then just shut them down? Their boards would be eviscerated. As for "repurpose", sure, they'll manufacture whatever will generate the most profit, but with a fab capacity glut that will definitely include RAM.

That wasn't my experience, though perhaps it was just my workloads.

I didn't use OS/2 until Warp, some years later, and only because I went to work for IBM.