They remove the text and sell your data, you guys complain; they leave it and sell your data, you guys complain. They just can’t win. /s

How do you stay accountable when you don’t set limits in your own term?

You don’t. Even if they’re in office, there’s nothing you can do. What do you think they’d do to Biden? Jail him? Fine him? You vote in people who align with what you want put in place, then have the separate parts of government check each other.

I don’t mind long-term goals, we need them, but there should be milestones

I addressed that in my previous comment. Nobody’s wasting time and resources. Such a limitation would cripple every president and make them damn near useless. They’d spend most of their time in office recalculating milestones, which would be incredibly small, at best, and impossible at worst.

frankly I’m surprised it’s apparently an unpopular opinion.

Because it kinda indicates that you haven’t really thought about this or you’re just not aware of how things happen in life. You’re coming off as management that’s never worked on the floor and have no idea about what’s actually feasible. It’s a good way to have everybody despise you.

Using this as an example, let’s say it was done at the start of Biden’s 1st year, what percentage should he set per what time period, and do you really expect car manufacturers to recreate their vehicles each period?

Manufacturers need time to meet targets. And the final percentage would be incredibly small, because it would be only four years. Whenever you see a product hit the market, development has starts years prior.

What targets exactly? Should every policy be limited to just their term? That completely removes the possibility of any target that takes a long time to reach. It would be a waste of time and resources to do smaller increments and then revisit them.

Almost every policy put into place will have effects that future presidents have to deal with. Do you actually care about this in principle or do you just not like this policy?

This is one of those things where formally, sure, there’s a difference, but I’ve never heard anyone use that first term. Everything’s a loanword. And these kinds of things are in many, if not all, languages, from my attempts at learning other languages.

Finally, a sane response. Of course they’ll “sound similar” because they’re both female voices attempting to come off as friendly with an American accent.

I’m more on the side of opposing AI implementations but people are really reaching with this one. I’m assuming it was pulled just so they can get their legal defense in order.

This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything

Because then they’ll give up whoever it was that they used to voice the AI and it’ll be mostly over. The thing is though that if they rush into a lawsuit too eagerly, nobody’s going to want to work with them under a similar contract.

Well, they get the snuff out competition and get to hold on to IPs. The thing is though: People are saying that there are good indie games, but I won’t ever hear shit about said games unless I specifically go looking for them, which will almost never happen nowadays.

Even when I allow ads, game ads are pretty rare. AAA games were almost impossible to miss because there’s always enough buzz, positive or negative, for the big ones.

What are the job titles of the people on these teams? I would suppose physics and CS. How are those job sectors looking in terms of vacancies? I’d think that there are more workers than jobs and that this is a ploy to get less experienced people for cheaper but they’re trying to rehire the same employees.

Nobody wants to make and maintain an account for every place they want to pay something for.

They could have replaced “check” with “cash”. Same idea.

You are implying that you’re for the bans, or at the very least, that they’re reasonable because of some nuance. You literally do that again here in this comment:

people that comment on this will probably have less information than necessary to make a reasonable argument.

The default conclusion that most will have is that banning homeless people is a really shitty thing to do. What extra info do we need to reasonably come to the conclusion? Where’s the nuance? I even went and read the first half or so and skimmed the rest(because it seemed repetitive and is more lengthy than I wanted to read) but there’s nothing there that even attempted to change my mind.

by up to 45% on SSDs

Excuse me, what!?!

I wonder where the average is for the performance reduction. Probably something I’ll look into but I’d be pissed if I bought a drive and instantly lost even 20%.

Luckily, I’m not on Windows so I have nothing to really worry about but damn.

So they essentially broke even? What sense does that make?

I’d be thinking more about how they’d plan to do it. Trump does have the Secret Service.

But good luck impeaching a man who can make his enemies disappear with a waive of his hand.

Friend, that’s why you just sign something in your office with the doors closed and not make it public.

Honestly, I didn’t even think enough about the whole thing enough to realize that the President could possibly get away with murder. Wouldn’t that make it an obvious ruling then? Could then appoint new judges to the Supreme Court. There would magically be a few openings all of a sudden after all. How is this ruling really something they’re actually considering?

It’s the second ruling in favor of trans rights this month from the 4th Circuit, a once-conservative court that has become a trailblazer in the realm of transgender rights.

Not bad. Definitely not something I expected to read.

The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which recently allowed Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Of course. This Supreme Court’s really gonna do a number on the justice system for decades to come huh?

You really should look up how much Meta makes per quarter. They’re doing the equivalent of setting aside a budget for hobbies.

Most definitely. They were complaining about them not making a profit, and they really thought blaming the few people using an Adblock made sense.

It’s all to get more Premium subscriptions. The ads are an intentional problem with the “obvious solution” being advertised right there on the homepage.

Sure, it’s possible, but no one on lemmy is actually doing that

I literally did.

Democrats did a good thing. Stop there.

Nah. You can’t give me a good reason to do so because there isn’t.

I don’t have to fall for your sealioning shit

You don’t know what sealionong is. 1. It has to be repetitive or be multiple requests 2. It has to be in spite of requests that were previously fulfilled. It’s been one request. You said I misrepresented you. So quote where I did. It would literally be you scrolling up and copy/pasting it. It’s one simple request. Hell, my comments have been far longer than yours. If anyone’s a troll here, it’s you. You’ve yet to make a substantial point.

And I might as well address your other comment in this one too.

The analogy was never about Democrats; it was about being able to criticize anyone while still accepting that they did a good thing overall. You’re the dumb one that tried to jump all over the place.

I’m just jumping in to call out your “oh we would never do such a horrible thing as not vote” bullshit.

You mean the thing that you brought up? Absolutely nobody said anything about not voting. If this is a troll, at least do something that isn’t this blatantly dumb. C’mon, at least make a comment that’ll demand more than a quick 2-minute response from me. I clearly have the free time. I miss the days when trolls were at left somewhat intelligent. It’s also an apt analogy for the situation it was actually getting used for. The other commenter was able to interact with it perfectly.

But you know what, I said I was done before and now I’m gonna stand by it unless you can actually back up the stupid claims you’re making. Quote where I misrepresented you or I guess we really are done.

EDIT: Holy hell! I only now noticed that I’m responding to two different users tag teaming in and out. No way in hell someone’s that dumb to not just point out that it’s someone else. Dude really said sealioning.

Soooo, where’s the quote my guy? Instead of actually responding with something of worth, you make a piss poor insult that doesn’t even make sense. I’m not even sure what part of my comment that’s supposed to be in response to, because again, I’m not stupid. Why would any kind of propaganda work on me?

Nevertheless, seeing as you really don’t have anything of substance to add, I guess we’re done here.

Insulting? You’re insulted by any kind of criticism huh? Yeah, makes sense. And that’s not in any way how this works. That’s not at all analogous to what we’re talking about anymore.

You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point.

Quote it then. You’ve done literally nothing to actually show where or how I’ve done that.

YOU never made a reasonable case.

My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.

Now you’re trying to make this about the Democrats as a whole. You’re really not able to think about things in parts huh? I can criticize something taking far too long(which, if you saw my response to another comment, removes pretty much all actual criticism from this specific case) and still accept that they did something good. Merely asking why it took this long isn’t, by any means, saying that them doing the thing was wrong. I’ve said this multiple times already.

Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden.

Let me know when left leaning persons have started voting, in significant numbers, for Biden merely because they have criticisms for Biden. That’s actually asinine. Actually going along with that same logic, do you think Republicans and centrists magically start voting for Democrats if any criticism is levied from their side?

Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists

Nah, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to ignore every negative thing that “my side” does just because you think it means the other side will lose. As I said before that’s literally giving leeway for them to do absolutely anything they want, as long as they’re at least marginally better than Republicans. I’ve gladly accepted that Net Neutrality is back, but I’m not going to realize it’s only back now after years, and ignore it without good reason. At this point, we’re not even arguing over the actual Net Neutrality case anymore.