The number of littered bottles, with or without a cap, is greater than the number of loose caps,

That smells like survivorship bias. Your dataset is skewed by loose caps being way harder to find due to being smaller. It stands to reason that all those bottles without a cap you find will have also had their cap littered in the vast majority of cases.

All good points if true. However I will say that to my limited understanding a crime under a specific law having been pardoned, that same law can then not be used to prosecute this crime anymore. Meaning states would have to find a different (preferably state) law under which the same offence is punishable.

And that is all disregarding other issues like packed courts, republican controlled states, the vagueness of double-jeopardy in this regard, and the general chilling effect a presidential pardon would have on prosecutors to even press charges in the first place.

The loss of benefits is easily circumvented by promising a golden parachute along with the pardon, so I could still see a lot of fanatics doing the crime “for country and freedom” or whatever they tell themselves.

Overall this seems like a potentially dangerous erosion of checks and balances that is easily abused when put in the wrong hands. As the dissenting opinions in the ruling openly state.

Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.

IANAL, but there is the presidential power to pardon. So the president could in theory give an illegal order (as long as it is an official act they have immunity) and promise a presidential pardon once the order is fulfilled (therefore extending immunity to the perpetrator). Meaning the president can entirely circumvent the UCMJ.

Linux users can’t even agree […] so how am I supposed to pick one with any confidence?

Easy. You make a post like the OP, count the positive mentions of distros in the comments, and bam, you have your distro of choice. It’s called the Linux newbie roulette and works kind of like the magic hat in Harry Potter that sorts you into your house.

For the unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYOkZz6Dck

(CW: gore, subtitles)

So, I think it’s pretty stupid to argue whether “convicted felon” should be in his opening lede line for Wikipedia.

True though that may be, I don’t think it’s surprising that this would happen, and since making the post I have been falling down a rabbit hole of finding out how Wikipedia is handling situations like this, partly through taking more than a glancing look at the talk pages for the first time ever, and it’s fascinating.

Currently my deepest point of descent is this sub-thread on the Admin board about the “consensus” boxes on top of talk pages being an undocumented and unapproved feature.

In Germany, Mein Kampf is banned except for educational purposes, eg in history class.

Strictly speaking this is incorrect, although the situation is somewhat complicated. There are laws that can be and were used to limit its redistribution (mainly the rule against anti-constitutional propaganda), but there are dissenting judgements saying original prints from before the end of WW2 cannot fall under this, since they are pre-constitutional. One particular reprint from 2018 has been classified as “liable to corrupt the young”, but to my knowledge this only means it cannot be publicly advertised.

What is interesting though is how distribution and reprinting was prevented historically, which is copyright. As Hitlers legal heir the state of Bavaria held the copyright until it expired in 2015 and simply didn’t grant license to anything except versions with scholarly commentary. But technically since then anybody can print and distribute new copies of the book. If this violates any law will then be determined on a case-by-case basis after the fact.

Der OP hat da nen Link mit Kontext oben hin gepackt, aber ich fühl mich trotzdem noch als wäre ich hier bei c/Aneurysmapfostierungen.

Do the lights provide the same info as the beeps?

Yes, but whether you have lights or just beeps depends on your board. I think yours does not have the lights, just the speaker pins.

So the circle is where a little speaker should be attached:

Sometimes these come with the case, but in your case not apparently or the PC guy would have attached it. You can buy these pretty cheap (one or two bucks) and they look like this:

When you have one attached and start the PC the mainboard will run some tests, and if it detects a problem there will be a pattern of beeps coming out of the speaker. You can look up what this pattern means in the handbook somebody linked above.

Carla Hinrichs bei Jung & Naiv klang da irgendwie anders.

Hab ich noch nicht gesehen, danke für den Hinweis. That said, sie ist Listenplatz Nummer 3. Das hieße wenn ich deren FAQ richtig verstanden habe sie wäre erst bei ~600.000 Stimmen/~2,1% drin.

Ich glaube allerdings nach wie vor, dass das keinen Effekt haben wird. […] Wenn der/die eine LG Abgeordnete, der/die es vielleicht rein schafft, dann dort life vor denen protestiert, wird das denke ich eher unfreiwillig peinlich, aber sicher niemandes Abstimmungsverhalten beeinflussen.

In der Not frisst der Teufel Fliegen… Wie gesagt mir würde es sogar schon reichen wenn die da nur den Cicero machen. Einfach bei allen anderen Themen nach Gewissen abstimmen, aber vor und nach jeder Rede immer schön sagen: “Der Klimawandel muss besiegt werden!” Bei jedem Thema den Kontext zum Klimawandel suchen und hervorheben. Den Konservativen bei jeder Gelegenheit ins Gewissen reden mit “Ja aber denk doch mal einer an die Enkelkinder!” Wer weiß, vielleicht gewinnt ja diesmal die Republik…

P.S.: Stellt sich raus die haben noch kein Wahlprogramm geschrieben, wird noch verhandelt und bis “Anfang Juni” soll es fertig sein.

Es gibt ein vorläufiges Programm und es gibt eine FAQ-Seite. Liest sich auf den ersten Blick grob satisfaktionsfähig. Money Quotes:

Wie werdet ihr im Parlament abstimmen?

Natürlich nehmen wir unser gewähltes Amt ernst! Unsere Abgeordneten können, wie alle anderen, ganz normal reden und abstimmen – was wir auch tun werden! Wir selbst sagen ja, dass wir Wandel in der Politik brauchen. Wir werden also auch ernsthaft abstimmen. Wie genau, das machen wir an unseren Werten und Forderungen fest, sowie an den Ergebnissen der Runden Tische

Warum schließt ihr euch nicht mit anderen Parteien wie der Klimaliste zusammen?

Es stimmt, dass eine Aufspaltung in mehrere Parteien oder sonstige politische Vereinigungen dazu führt, dass die Gruppierungen sich gegenseitig Stimmen „wegnehmen“. Wir sind jedoch keine normale Partei, sondern wir wollen das Parlament mit vergleichsweise unkonventionellen Methoden richtig aufmischen. Mit uns wählt man also nicht nur gute Klimapolitik, sondern auch den Protest ins Parlament!

Wenn jetzt Leute, die vorher links/grün gewählt haben, stattdessen “Pöbler” wählen, die keine Ausschussarbeit machen und am Ende nicht mal abstimmen (klingt für mich so), dann kommen weniger sinnvolle Maßnahmen durch, nicht mehr.

Aktivismus kann jetzt alles mögliche heißen von Farbbeutel schmeißen bis hinter jeder Rede den Cicero machen und sagen: “Im Übrigen meine ich der Klimawandel muss weitestmöglich gestoppt werden!”. Ich würde denen da im Zweifel schon erst einmal zutrauen innerhalb wenn auch am Rande der Hausordnung zu operieren, und ein Gegengewicht zur Klimawandelleugnung von AfD und Konsorten wäre glaube ich halt echt nicht schlecht. Lässt die “normalen” Grünen wie vernünftige Verhandlungspartner aussehen. Und uns läuft halt echt die Zeit davon, wir brauchen mehr Druck. Wie gesagt, ist das letzte Parlament vorm Point-of-no-return.

Muss mal gucken was die sich denn so ins Wahlprogramm geschrieben haben…

Du also ganz ehrlich, eigentlich bin ich da ja bei dir, aber bei dem hanebüchenen Schneckentempo was bei dem Thema an den Tag gelegt wird hätten wir in diesem konkreten Fall die “Pöbler” schon vor 2-3 Dekaden im Parlament brauchen können glaube ich. Jetzt sind wir mit der Situation konfrontiert das wir noch knapp 5,5 Jahre Zeit (bis 2030) haben um die globalen Treibhausgasemissionen zu halbieren(!), sonst haben wir hier echte Probleme am Arsch (sagt das IPCC). Das ist knapp eine Legislaturperiode im Europaparlament. Glaubst du echt wenn wir die gleichen Figuren hier weiter Dienst nach Vorschrift schieben lassen wird das was? Ich hab ja meine Zweifel und überlege halt ernsthaft da mal ein paar Wadenbeißer wie die LG vorbeizuschicken, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund des OP…

(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have “hallucinations”, no matter their size. What’s your magic way of knowing when that happens?

That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it.

What? According to the article based on which we are discussing this news that is the point (allegedly). And it is unrelated to your point yes. I’m not entirely sure where you even came up with your point to be honest.

Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it.

I guess the consumers, i.e. the people of Vietnam in possession of this luxury item, would disagree with that assessment. Especially if they have sunk significant finances and/or time into their Steam account.

It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin.

Nobody said it is?

And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games.

Again, what? I’m saying people will want to keep access to something they already paid for, their games on Steam and the according metadata like savegames, multiplayer access, and such. Not sure how you managed to pull this interpretation out of what I said, but be assured it’s incorrect.

It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

Since the whole logic chain that led you to this conclusion was already riddled with errors from the very beginning this is simply a non sequitur.

But if the Vietnamese video game industry is actively harmed by Steam, an American company, using its vast resources to outcompete Vietnamese publishers, then what is your opposition to this that doesn’t encompass a de facto defense of free market capitalism?

Not GP but the article didn’t say that Steam outcompeted local developers by “using its vast resources”. On the contrary, it alleged that local developers cannot compete on Steam with international developers, because those do not have to apply the local regulations:

Citing it as “an injustice to domestic publishers”, Vietnamese studios reportedly say that local game development “will die” if Steam is able to keep releasing games without the same government scrutiny as domestic games.

A somewhat shaky argument considering that the same is true for many other countries applying their own local regulations, which Vietnamese developers do not have to follow.

But anyway, what is my opposition that doesn’t encompass a de facto defence of free market capitalism? The damage to the users. What about all the Vietnamese people losing access to Steam’s online features, which are arguably necessary nowadays for many games, especially multiplayer ones. And for what? To benefit Vietnamese businesses? Not very socialist of you comrade Vietnam. *smh*

In any case, this is all pure speculation at this point, since both parties have yet to make a statement about the situation:

At the time of writing, there’s been no formal word from Vietnamese authorities or Steam about the “ban”, […]

That said, my current head cannon goes something like this:

Vietnamese devs: Dude, these regulations on games are killing us. We can’t compete on Steam with games like these.
The Party: Okay we hear you. *bans Steam*
Vietnamese devs: Wait, what? (← we are here)

Edit: formatting

Not to say that I’m leaning towards the conspiracy interpretation, but all those questions have somewhat plausible answers. So let me play the devils advocate here.

Why would boeing go from plainly assassinating somebody, to then trying to kill somebody with influenza b, a usually easily survivable infection for somebody in his age range?

Well if you conjecture that both deaths were indeed a murder then that means Boeing’s hitmen just fucked up the oldest trick in the book, making it look like a suicide. Makes sense to switch methods.

Why wouldn’t they just assassinate him too? Everybody already thinks they did it, it’s not like they saved any face by using such an unlikely method.

Plausible deniability. One whistleblower “suicide”? Suspicious. Two whistleblower “suicides” shortly after each other? Very suspicious. They may be an immensely powerful company, but that doesn’t mean they are entirely invincible.

And how the hell did they even manage to do it?

Maybe they just saw the victim being in the hospital with a naturally occurring influenza infection and helped an already likely secondary infection along, virtually guaranteeing a fatal outcome? Not sure how lethal MRSA is exactly, but doesn’t look all that friendly from a quick Wiki glance.

Again, not that I’m saying this conjecture is true. But the circumstances and the timing of it all are just a bit too suspicious to not at least entertain the hypothesis. I mean it’s not exactly statistically relevant, but 2/14 is still a ridiculously high mortality rate for being a Boeing whistleblower.

So people will speculate. Presumption of innocence is a law seldom obeyed in the court of public opinion. That doesn’t mean the conspiracy theory is either true or false.

pet open source projects that no one else ever seems to contribute to, not […] software that holds up civilization

SamePicture.jpeg