He is currently at 72 million and in the last election got 74 million. This is the third comment in a row that I’ve had to say this. Where in the world are people getting these ridiculous numbers?

Granted I don’t understand those people, but this difference between now and 2020 is lack of support for Harris, not increased support for Trump. I’ll add people sitting at home to the list of people I don’t want to associate with.

Volts are not a unit of power. Watts are a unit of power.

Although there is a common adjective order, it’s not always clear which category a word belongs in. People insisting that the words “modular” and “versatile” fit into whatever category they chose are presenting a lot more certainty than is warranted. I am a native speaker, and either order sounds fine in this case.

People know what it is. That’s why they’re down voting it. These don’t build communities.

We all have access to RSS and can create our own sets of feeds. Posts are for the things that are worth talking about. Spamming a community makes it harder to find the interesting things.

No person is advantaged by having their voting power go toward a candidate they woudn’t vote for.

This person knows just enough to sound credible and still get it wrong. He says that the electoral college requires states to allocate all delegates to the popular vote winner in each state, which is not true. States can allocate delegates however they want, and at least two states allocate proportionally to how how their populace voted.

This is a critical difference, because eliminating a mismatch between the electoral college and national popular vote doesn’t require eliminating the college. Eliminating the college requires a constitutional amendment, which is difficult to achieve. The National Popular Vote Compact requires nearly as much effort, and it’s incredibly fragile, because as soon as a few states allocate all of their electors to a candidate who lost in that state, they’ll pull out and the whole thing will crumble.

The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally. That is in the best interest of each state, so it’s not fragile. It can be accomplished one state at a time, so it’s logistically easier. It doesn’t require huge buy in to work, just a handful of states, so it’s easier to achieve and more stable. Every mismatch better the electoral college and national popular vote in US history would not have occurred if states allocated delegates proportionally, so it solves the problem. People should start recognizing the real problem, so that we can work on a real solution.

I haven’t used Bronner’s soap in years, but unless something is radically different, that’s sawdust.

If I were to create an assignment, I would make a learning goal the purpose. Learning critical thinking is a good goal, but I wouldn’t peg it to Lemmy. If the point is thinking critically about social media sites, then you could offer suggestions of places to look, including Lemmy.

I have no evidence of her motives. Campaign donations are public record, and she receives funding from oil companies. The idea that politicians are not swayed by finance is absurdly naive. They don’t need to accept that money. And, regardless whether convincing swing voters is a part of the campaign’s consideration, it should be clear that influence from corporations is not an influence. Then we could sit here an take them at their word. As it is, it’s impossible to think that millions of dollars from oil companies is not affecting the decision to make a complete u turn on supporting fracking.

They do according to the US supreme court. The court ruled in Citizens United that restricting donations from corporations was a violation of corporations’ first amendment rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

It corporations weren’t given the same rights as people, then we’d need to wonder less about what politicians’ real motives were.

That does sound better doesn’t it? If I were a presidential candidate, I would definitely say “We support fracking because we need Pennsylvania” instead of “We support fracking because our campaign has accepted millions of dollars from the oil industry”.

Without evidence I will say it’s more likely that she has significant funding from the fracking industry and is under the thumb of rich executives. The difference is that they likely understand that supporting fracking could cost them the election, but they know that by not supporting it they lose a huge source of funding. They have weighed the costs, benefits and risks, and decided it’s a risk worth taking.

A good solution is to get corporate money out of politics. There are narrow ways to achieve that, but a broad solution that fixes a lot of problems is to end corporate personhood. This organization has made steady progress toward that and I think is worth supporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_to_Amend. Considered signing up for their email list.

Another solution is more wisely voting. People don’t vote in primary elections, but they’re more important than the general elections. They determine what the field of candidates looks like. Vote in primary elections. You don’t necessarily want to vote in primary of the party you most align with though. An obvious example where you’d vote in a different party is if you live in a gerrymandered district. There’s a near 100% chance the gerrymandered party candidate will win. It doesn’t matter who the other candidates are. Vote for the least bad candidate in the other party. You won’t get everything you want, but you’ll get more than you would otherwise. It will also force the party to change.

That’s not the only time you’d vote in a party you don’t align best with. Maybe you’re relatively happy with all of the candidates in a party, so why split hairs if you’d be ok with any of them? There are so many considerations that the only advice is to keep an open mind about party membership, evaluate where you make the most impact (not what looks the most like you) and vote in every damn election, primaries included.

I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.

It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.

I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.

I don’t know that it’s technically harmonization, but sometimes when wolves howl at the same time, they will each choose a different pitch. Presumably it’s so the group sounds like it has as many individuals as possible.

Wow, two of them.

It’s pretty funny. The article says that this is where money is being spent next (it implies it’s government funded), but the author acts like that’s a bad thing.

Unless new installations are spurred on by subsidies or power purchase agreements, oppressed profitability could eventually halt Germany’s solar expansion, Schieldrop said.

Instead, focus is likely to move onto improvements that will make more use of the energy produced, such as investments in batteries and grid infrastructure.

It’s wild. This guy is suggesting that they subsidize solar installation, in the exact same article where he’s saying there’s too much solar. Either the article is disingenuous or he’s an absolute idiot.

deleted by creator