Seems worth noting he’s not being charged with anything spying or geopolitics related, but instead he’s been charged with theft. No details in the article about what he’s accused of having stolen. Seems like almost the only notable fact in this whole story is his being a US soldier in Russia, otherwise there’s a ton of Americans accused of pretty crimes while abroad every day.
That doesn’t really contradict their premise about making modern RTS. StarCraft and Age of Empires 2 are ancient at this point. An entire generation of kids has grown up since they came out.
I don’t think the fact that you could make a successful mainstream RTS way back then really says much about whether you could make one in 2024.
Trump has that incredible either-you-see-it-or-you-don’t charisma.
For every Trump there are a thousand wannabes like DeSantis who get destroyed by their gaffes and screw ups (like is supposed to happen) instead of being boosted by them. The exception, despite being very prominent, doesn’t break the rule that coverage of a politician’s gaffes is normally very, very bad for them.
I really don’t think so. The fact that we’re still talking about this week’s later is an indication of how dead her national political career is. Her brand is the dog killing politician now.
She was a contender to be Trump’s VP candidate, and he can’t stop talking about what a fool she is with no political acumen.
Sadly that strategy does in fact ordinarily pay off because the young people that make up the largest demographic of legal adults notoriously underperforms when it comes to voting.
Utah is gorgeous.
There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.
Try visiting a not ugly state like California.
But how does that help capitalists make more money by eliminating their competition?
Team Red doesn’t actually have anything of the sort in their heads. They already decided on the conclusion, which is that climate change is fake, and then they grasp on whatever the flavor du jour is for the rationalization on why it’s true. That might happen to be this thing you’re saying about measuring tools in urbanized areas, but if you cut that down they’ll just switch to some other rationalization.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at with reason in the first place.
So there’s no evidence whatsoever then.
This conspiracy theory makes as much sense as claiming the reason Republicans are against global warming is Saudi Arabia.
People on this site lose their minds when the word Russia or Putin appears in a sentence. We don’t need dehumanized foreign bad guys to explain away and play cover for the actual bad guys we have domestically in the United States. We have the receipts. It’s Exxon and other big corps, not Russia.
This is a new one on me. Never seen people trying to tie Putin to climate change before. Might as well can him the boogeymonster at this point with the way everything bad is attributed to him online.
Is there any evidence Putin is pro-global climate change or is this one of those “it just makes sense” sort of things?
Are we presuming the heads of Exxon and the other big corporations that have been destroying the planet with actual leaked documents receipts to prove they’ve been behind the suppression of the science and lobbying the Republicans on this also on Russia’s payroll?
Isn’t the solution you’re implying (and the solution pushed for by OP) if I’m not misunderstanding the exact mirror image? I.e. we should disallow TikTok from platforming opinions you disagree with (aligns with China) while allowing Facebook et al to continue because they mainly show opinions you happen to agree with (aligns with Western interests)?
I think the main opinion I see on Lemmy is that we should either force them all to regulate speech the same way, or not regulate free speech on any of them, but either way with a clear rule that is applied fairly and equally.
That’s not what I see at all.
Normally it goes more like instead of targeting TikTok specifically, we should pass a broad bill that targets all social media companies regardless of who owns them.
The point isn’t generally that TikTok should be free or Facebook et al need to suppress but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.
Nah I wasn’t being sarcastic.
As I understand it, in engineering these types of mobile space constrained devices you essentially have a “budget” of space. Every hardware feature you include generally eats into this budget and if you want things to be user accessible or repairable it eats into this budget majorly.
That budget has to come from somewhere, so you can pay it with things like reducing the size of your battery or reducing the size of your drivers which in turn represents a reduction in sound quality.
This article seems to omit the most important fact about headphones - how do they sound?
I love repairability and all, but it hardly matters if I don’t want to use them in the first place because they traded off too much quality for repairability.
I’d rather have both and there’s no reason we should settle for less.
Of course actual protection are more important.
But social signaling that LGBTQ+ is accepted by society and the government is important, too. And preventing bigots who overtly are anti-LGBTQ+ from winning on passing laws like this is also important.
From the article:
On the federal charges, Dedmon and Elward each face a maximum sentence of 120 years plus life in prison and $2.75 million in fines. Hartfield faces a possible sentence of 80 years and $1.5 million, McAlpin faces 90 years and $1.75 million, Middleton faces 80 years and $1.5 million, and Opdyke could be sentenced to 100 years with a $2 million fine.
Fortunately, doesn’t seem like they’re letting them off easy or anything.
This is also interesting in that the far more commonly heard story on social media is when the theft victim is the poster, and the police refuse to take action to help recover their property even though they have the Find My Phone on the thief’s location.
Turns out being a place for journalism and continuously losing money over time is not a sustainable model.
It can be called throwing everything away to turn a profit but not many people are interested in supporting journalism when it actually costs them money - consumers aren’t interested in paying, journalists aren’t interested in donating their time to work for free, and investors aren’t interested in donating their money to give away the journalism for free.
I read the article but I’m still confused how this works.
My understanding is the herpes virus DNA is integrated into our own. So once the gene editing molecules snip at the herpes virus damaging it, how does the chromosome get put back together?
Is it actually sniping at two places in the herpes genome in a way that the two ends match up and reform while cutting out a section in the middle?