@cgarret3 - eviltoast
  • 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • cgarret3@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlTitle
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.

    Aside from that though, let’s dig in.

    Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.

    Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”

    Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table



  • cgarret3@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlTitle
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Let’s refine your comment.

    In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.

    This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.

    When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.

    There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away

    But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul







  • cgarret3@lemm.eetoOpen Source@lemmy.mlDistrochooser
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I like the tool and am going to keep playing with it, but in my first run I’ve found that it seems to have an issue with the “App Store” vs “terminal command” installation question. My final results, having chosen “terminal commands,” listed some distros as not recommended because of manual install, including arch, gentoo, void, etc. Otherwise big thumbs up

    Edited to add: https://distrochooser.de/en/d51d8e6a10f1/ my results


  • You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Their CPUs are ARM based, so yes, they can power down more efficiently than x86 and therefore squeeze a bit more battery life. However, they charge $2500 for a $1500 machine and every minor upgrade to them costs wayyyyy more than market value.

    Which is fine. Apple can sell whatever product they want and if consumers buy them, then good, people are getting what they want and Apple is profitable. But don’t sit here and tell the world that it’s a “competitive” product. It’s an overpriced, fashionable, niche computer.

    Also, the company your looking for alongside intel is AMD




  • Edit: I was corrected below, I had it wrong. But I’ll leave my original post unaltered, just know to read further

    You’ve got some replies already, but I (not a lawyer) feel like you don’t quite have “entrapment” right.

    Entrapment is when an average person might be duped into doing something unlawful in a circumstance where it might appear lawful or at least appear moral to the average person.

    I don’t trust this example to hold up entirely, but here is a go at it: hitchhiking is illegal most places in the US, but should an officer pose as a hitchhiker that appears mortally wounded beg for a ride, you pick them up to take to the hospital, then they fine you for picking up a hitchhiker, would constitute as entrapment