mozz

Can you show a screenshot of the waterfall display while loading with a fresh cache / without the fresh cache?

I'm running on mbin; it shows randomly selected stories / random communities in the sidebar (which I think Lemmy doesn't do) with no additional details besides the title.

Cannot upvote this enough. I subscribed to this guy's newsletter because of this article; it's honestly excellent.

Ever see a story in the sidebar, and know before clicking on it who posted it?

Yeah. I get it -- she was probably trapped in heart-stopping panic and just wanted to get through as quickly as possible so she could flee the stage, and he was prolonging things.

But yeah she was just standing there awkwardly, stiffly refusing to go with it when he defused the tension and kept things moving and made people laugh about it in a good way.

I do not like Adam Sandler but he handled that quite well

I guess what I'm saying is, what is the alternative?

If you're a Nicaraguan whose family got killed in the 80s by contras, or a Honduran whose kid got taken away in Arizona who still hasn't seen him and probably never will, I think it probably sounds pretty silly for someone who could have worked to make the system that's trying to destroy them behave more humanely to say "Yeah I could have, but it would have been a bunch of work and taken time, so I didn't. I just got discouraged and decided it was all the same."

I don't think it will happen in 20 years, or 200, if you're waiting for "the government" to do these reasonable and sane things. That's just the nature of the beast; they will not. But, they're amenable to working for change. If your dad was political then you and he are probably well familiar with it... yeah, the people on the evil side more or less never stop and they have some advantages. It sucks. But again, what's the alternative? Just wait for it to get worse until they start coming for you directly in an immediate and physical sense?

Biden tried to do quite a lot better than the blue line initially, and Manchin unexpectedly blocked the first bill in the senate after it passed the house. They had to go back and redo a whole scaled-back version that was the actual blue-line-predicted version.

Here's a pretty good overview of what made it into the second bill, and here's a recap of how it worked in practice after a couple of years in action.

My overall feeling is, even the yellow line is nowhere near enough, but our current political class is bent on self-destruction because they don't actually grasp how bad it is (and will not, until it's even more too late than the too late it already is). But still, reducing it to the blue line is fuckin amazing within the current environment in Washington. The question should be "how do we get it lower than that now" as opposed to "how exhaustively can we shit on the guy who got the first round of changes done."

If I rewound by 20 years and told you or your dad back then that if you got real involved in politics you could get weed legalized, what would you have told me?

Most people get impossible to "work with" if you force them out of their homes and start randomly killing their family and friends whenever you feel like

Hamas is a corrupt and violent organization, and I won't defend their murder and rape of the innocent any more than I would Israel's. But only one party to the conflict has such an overwhelming military advantage that they're able to (and do) kill with impunity, and one particular party created the conflict in the first place by seizing land and resources from some people who had no earthly reason to have any type of feeling one way or another towards them before that all happened. Feels unfair to assign much responsibility at all to the other party given all that as background to the situation.

it seems safe to assume Newsweek looked for the highest pro Biden result, and presented as something they intentionally checked for.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. That's the other reason I didn't post the Newsweek article as a story. I've absolutely seen this from "the other side," but that doesn't mean that the answer is dueling cherry-picked samples. I only brought it up as a way of making the argument that failing to limit to only likely voters is a very significant flaw in OP's poll.

To me, the factual analysis of which candidate people should be supporting based on how they're performing is the main thing to look at, with how the polls are looking as sort of a distant tactical afterthought because it's obviously relevant on some level to how the election is shaping up.

I have never participated in a presidential election that wasn't "VOTE BLUE OR ELSE!" And it's never going to be any different.

There's your problem, I think. If all you do is vote for president every four years then it's gonna be deeply unsatisfying, and the level of actual impact you're gonna be able to have on the system (especially as a left wing person) is gonna be pretty much nonexistent.

I think working for the pres campaign of someone you really believe in (Bernie Sanders from back in the day, some local school board, maybe like a state congressional seat) might be more satisfying. And there are plenty of people who are working for positive change outside of just showing up periodically to vote for which corporate candidate, and sometimes they get big wins.

I think it's easier to make change on a local level than on a national level and definitely than on a presidential-election level. But yeah, I feel you on this. I'm just saying that change is possible. I mean... weed is legal now in a bunch of places. When I was growing up people still sometimes went to prison for a long long time for that shit. It never made any sense, and everyone knew the system was busted, but nothing ever changed for decades and decades, until one day, hey! It did.