To be fair, I don’t think they expected that generation of the time to still be in power.

The next generations might inspire change. We can hope that change will be good, but the world hasn’t really moved from the old generations of then.

This post is just like the red flag the parent mentioned. Like the character in the movies/shows who says “It’s impossible” (and probably wrong).

You didn’t even use a specific energy production, like burning. We already have plasma gasification that can create energy from coal without producing CO2. It’s not an efficient nor cost-effective choice; but technically, coal energy production without CO2 is possible today.

Why so confidently wrong?

To me, it’s unclear what “hard-fought” means here. Are there any rights that aren’t hard-fought? Are hard-fought rights different from the other ones?

Every right we have has been fought for. The fights often came at a significant cost, with sacrifice, and required conviction. I remember how “hard-fought” was used, and what it used to mean, so it really makes me wonder how you’re using it.

Their take: they couldn’t convince Trump voters, so trying is pointless: maybe we shouldn’t even have a debate.

My take: Bad debaters. They’ve been getting worse over time. What’s the best move for a bad debater? Don’t debate.

It’s easy to look at the data and think that people can’t be convinced. Yet, its also easy to look at the Trump debates and see they weren’t really trying to convince anyone of much.

You can’t convince people if you don’t really have a message to convince them of aside from “I’m not Trump” and “Trump is bad.” They already believed that: Both candidates were bad, and both candidates are bad at delivering the promises. After three elections with Trump, it’s really like a broken record at this point.

I would have imagined the advanced stealth F-35s would’ve stayed out of sight.

The fighter is only that close to help stroke egos.

Combined with prompt bias. Is “medical specialist” an actual job?

You’re not wrong.

Realistically, there’s a bit of a nuance. Many modern web apps have different components that aren’t HTML. You don’t need HTML for a component. And those non-HTML components can provide the consistency they need. Sometimes, that’s consistency for how to get the data. Sometimes, that’s consistency for how to display the data. For displaying, each component basically has its own CSS, but it doesn’t need to. A CSS class isn’t required.

Tailwind isn’t meant to be a component system, It’s meant to supplement one. If you’re writing CSS’s components, it looks horrible. If you’re writing components at CSS that needs a foundation of best practices, it works pretty decent. They’re still consistency. They’re still components. They’re just not centered around HTML/CSS anymore. It doesn’t have to be.

Sematically, it is still worse HTML. Realistically, it’s often faster to iterate on, easier to avoid breakage: especially as the project becomes larger. Combine that with the code being more easily copied and pasted. It can be a tough combo to beat. It’s probably just a stepping stone to whatever’s next.

It probably depends on the batteries, battery market, and repair market. We don’t really expect batteries to last a decade. The repairability of these tools is a concern.

Meanwhile, it’s pretty common to repair gas tools. Sometimes from multiple broken ones. Powering the gas tools is similarly simple. None of it requires a company to continue to develop their proprietary product to run.

This is an industry and a market that has been around for decades. I suspect the limited part supply and limited repairability of the electric tools is going to limit their practical lifetime compared to the existing ones on the market.

A lot of these areas have much more stringent gun laws. Yes, they can own the guns, but they can’t carry them. Carrying/displaying will probably grt then arrested and charged with a weapons felony.

I’m usually told we’ve moved beyond the need for people to do that. Then we should just leave the use of force to the police: The organizations that consistently seems to try to prove we can’t trust them. I agree, the police should be an organization Americans can trust: How can we make them that way?

Does anyone see the irony?

• U.S. conservatives “trust” the police, but still want civilians to be armed.
• U.S. “leftists” distrust the police, but want them to be the only ones armed.

The U.S. never fixed their trust issues with police. So this seems like the logical result.

Probably because the Democrats are so anti-gun/weapon. The target demographic probably leans anti-weapon, even if they’re not necessarily Democrat. The combination keeps them nore vulnerable. Its even worse when carrying weapons in these areas is outright vanned: no training, no permits, only police. A The safety of the group is generally prioritized over the safety of the individual. Which, like here, can be a problem.

From how they’re acting, it seems only a matter of time. They seem to check all of the boxes for a lethal or deadly force in nearly every state, even the strict ones. Unidentified suspiciously dressed group aggressively surrounding you and preventing your retreat? Lethal/deadly force can often be used to defend another person. Someone else can shoot these idiots In plain clothes with no identification.

Even the “police” they identify themselves late, it’s seems to be setting themselves up for a weak defense.