To be even more explicit on the last point, that means regularly updating OpenWRT and all your containers, not just the server’s base OS

Police station would be a terrible choice. People who aren’t able to vote on election day skew poor, black, brown, and/or immigrant - exactly the groups who would be (rightly) afraid of entering a police station.

deleted by creator

That makes sense.

And how is it nobody seems to have noticed the two jawbones mounted above?

That’s the corporate excuse statement, and only significant if you ignore all context.

Except that the Dems are consistently unwilling to play hardball. The generals would have to make the decision to intervene without being asked for that scenario to play out. I don’t know much about sentiment in the upper (or even lower) ranks of the US military, but that seems unlikely.

Even then, there’s a significant chance Harris refuses to be put in power by military intervention, or the generals believe she would remove them and instruct her attorney general to prosecute them. So military intervention, if successful, would at best mean new (military supervised) elections.

Absolutely not. At those densities, the write speed isn’t high enough to trust to RAID 5 or 6, particularly on a new system with drives from the same manufacturing batch (which may fail around the same time). You’d be looking at a RAID 10 or even a variant with more than two drives per mirror. Regardless of RAID level, at least a couple should be reserved as hot spares as well.

EDIT: RAID 10 doesn’t necessarily rebuild any faster than RAID 5/6, but the write speed is relevant because it determines the total time to rebuild. That determines the likelihood that another drive in the array fails (more likely during a rebuild due to added drive stress). with RAID 10, it’s less likely the drive will be in the same span. Regardless, it’s always worth restating that RAID is no substitute for your 3-2-1 backups.

The most encouraging thing in the whole talk for me was when he told a roomful of IT folks that they need to join or form Unions and they cheered.

Meaning car companies will either need to start making vehicles people can afford or the public pressure for public transportation will massively increase. Win-win.

Yes, it’s legal in much of the US. Many states require a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry. WalMart has signs at the front of the store “requesting” people not to open carry, but apparently not prohibiting it.

Not a choice he had to make. The NFP parties agreed on a consensus candidate - Lucie Castets.

The opposite headline would have been more true. This ruling DOES disenfranchise those very same voters for state and local elections.

They won’t get to vote on little things like who draws the voting districts, who runs the elections, who certifies (or refuses to certify) the elections. Same for who decides on school book bans, policing priorities, medicaid expansion, or mask bans.

This may be a smaller loss than expected, but painting it as a win is disingenuous.

As a presidential candidate, she’s been perfectly clear that she does not intend to change that policy if elected.

Pacifica then.

No, you wee right the first time. It’s 27 times as big, or 26 times bigger

Florida.

At the nation-state level with an ex-president target, pumping heated liquid through the arteries of a dead body isn’t much of an obstacle.

Probably not actually what they did, but seriously people - a single biometric security factor is not going to secure anything when a government has the body and actually cares about getting in.

No need to - “gay bashing” is unambiguous and hasn’t been used for decades to describe criticism of gay gangs that go around clubbing trans people to death.

Acknowledging that Zionists have robbed the word “antisemitic” of its meaning is the first step in reclaiming the word. The second step is to use other words to describe actual antisemitism so that people understand it still exists. The third is to refuse to allow Zionists to continue conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

You asked how to describe it, and I engaged with you in good faith to provide an answer. You responded with a second rhetorical device, and I engaged for the benefit of other readers. I won’t bother a third time.

[Edit: I removed the last paragraph after initially posting, being unsure I was responding to the same user in both cases. When I re-added it after confirming, I used slightly different language. Their quote of “rhetorical trick” below matches the original wording, and is a legitimate quote of my response]

A hate crime.