I’ve been flip flopping on this over the last 48 hours.

I can’t dispute that Joe doesn’t seem fit for another presidency.

That said, it sounds like it’s really up to Biden and the First Lady to decide to withdraw before anything will happen.

In the mean time, this discussion isn’t helping progressive voters. Trump will preside over an irreversible lurch to the right. Progressives need to unite behind a candidate - anyone the faintest pulse will do.

you can either a) reward them for moving left or b) punish them for moving right

You’re talking about the political will of a nation as you would training a puppy. It’s incredibly reductive and simply not how the overton window works.

If the republicans win the next several elections the democrats will move further to the right to try to steal votes off them. The republicans will have to move further to the right to differentiate themselves from the democrats.

Not surprisingly, the more republicans win elections the further right everything moves.

Your position is exactly where the conservatives would have you. They can’t win your vote so their best outcome is to convince you not to vote.

This is about as witty as a box of rocks, just like it was when it was invented in 2007.

Perfect! Don’t vote for the dems for several elections. I’m certain this plan will usher in a new era of progressive politics. Well done. You idiot.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps 20 years ago Biden WorldCom acquitted himself better.

That said Trumps performance is a well established debate strategy called a gish gallop - just say dozens of lies and your opponent won’t be able to rebut them all. If they try, they won’t have time for their own points.

pay more mind to content than affiliations

That’s not really possible when commenters with certain affiliations are known to be manipulative and participate in bad faith.

Great points.

I think the option of nuclear needs to be on the table, and in some (or many) circumstances it might be the best fit.

Presently in Australia one of our two major parties is campaigning on a “pivot to nuclear” platform, but we’re kind the polar opposite to the netherlands (both figuratively and literally?). The vast majority of Australia is sunny desert, girt by sea, with a tiny population in on the coast. My state is something like 2,000km by 1,250km, with about 2 million people. Nuclear just doesn’t seem like a good fit right now.

My concern is that with this pivot to nuclear we basically just keep burning coal for the next 20 years while we’re building nuclear plants.

It might be a great idea to build several reactors, while we furiously build out wind and solar.

There are some gargantuan solar hydrogen cracking projects not far from here in the planning phase which just sound amazing to me.

Enough. Feel free to continue believing that, on the balance of probabilities, this tomb is that of the really real Jesus.

If you’re happy with this type of calculation then the probability that this tomb is that of biblical Jesus is (number of occupants) / (number of humans in that area at the time the tomb was built).

If it was just about transparency he would’ve released it sooner.

Sitting on it to release at the right time was partisan.

He released information relating to government officials engaging in misconduct

… at precisely the right time to maximise the effect of the release and diminish her chances at winning the election.

No whistleblowers shouldn’t go to prison, I’m glad Assange is going home but I do dislike him immensely.

Of course you can.

I’m unable to calculate the probability that the moon will fall out of the sky tonight but I know that the probability is very low.

We might not be able to calculate the probability but we can conclude that the chances that this tomb is that of Jesus is infinitesimal.

This conclusion, while weakly supported by a statistical analysis of the names involved, is rejected by most archaeologists, theologians, linguistic and biblical scholars.

There’s a bunch of references for archaeologists debunking it.

I know you said “it might not be him” but I feel like that understates the weight of evidence against that possibility.

Well it’s made a lot of people feel satisfied that they’ve done their bit and had their say.

Is that the definition of CSAM?

Trespass can mean merely imposing on the rights of another.

So if one is entitled to privacy on their property, then flying a drone over it is trespass.

sweet. thanks.

INPUT will need to be DOCKER-USER in your script but otherwise I’ll see how it goes.

ok. I hadn’t thought about that.

Are there alternatives? Or is an IPv6 block list not practically possible?

Thank you. I was looking at something like this.

I guess I was asking whether there’s a package or project which kinda creates this rule and keeps the ipset list updated.

If I create a rule like that, then next time I’m playing around with this I’m not going to be able to figure out what I’ve done.