immutable

joined 1 year ago
[–] immutable@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t know you but I think the world would be a cooler place if you didn’t get shot.

At least based off this post you I feel we are better off with you than without you.

Also my wife has a super cool possum backpack which is like a plushie but with added utility, it even has cute baby possums on its head for extra adorableness.

I’m not 100% sure that it’s this one but if it’s not it’s very similar to this one https://www.etsy.com/listing/1773594130/snug-alongs-possumopossumbaby-possums

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Did I miss a time when the government forced me to put solar panels on my house or an electric car in my garage.

I mean I’d sorta like solar panels and they are expensive so if the government will “force me” to put them up I’ll valiantly take that bullet.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A hacker, who has been quite active recently and goes by the alias ‘grep,’ has leaked over 12,000 (11,802) call records with audio, which they claim belong to Twilio customers.

11,802 is not, in fact, over 12,000.

The article goes on to assess this is 3.37% of all Twilio accounts because there are 350,000 accounts.

As of 2024, the company has over 350,000 active customer accounts, which means the latest alleged leak is approximately 3.37% of the total accounts.

Let’s say despite their struggle with math earlier that this 350,000 figure is correct, they seem to think that each account does exactly one phone call.

Further, the image posted makes it pretty clear that the guy hacked someone using twilio and that 3rd party that got hacked had simply recorded their own call information. So this article should be something like “person using twilio got hacked, had made ~12k phone calls with twilio service”

This articles analysis is extremely sloppy and nonsense to the point of seeming like it’s AI generated

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s true that consultants seem to love these “extremely clever” plays. I imagine if Harris wins, you’ll see a lot more “let’s switch the candidate out and get an excitement bump like that thing that worked that one time.”

I looked for data to try to quantify the demographics of Green Party voters and couldn’t find much, if you’ve got some I’d love to see it.

I suppose the thing that stands out to me is how Republican and Democratic programming works. Both parties enforce norms and spend a lot of time programming at their constituencies. I believe that trump was able to take over the Republican Party against the wishes of the party leadership because he intuitively understood this. He sorta hijacked this programming because he knew the dog whistles and catch phrases and was willing to shamelessly iterate and say whatever would work. Here’s a fun article about him thinking “drain the swamp” was a bad line and then embracing it wholeheartedly when it worked https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/2016-trump-explains-why-he-didnt-like-the-phrase-drain-the-swamp-but-now-does/2016/10/26/4a2f257a-9be0-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_video.html

This programming is where we get political tropes from. It’s why if you see a thumbnail about “woke dei bullshit” you can be pretty sure that’s going to be a conservative complaint video.

When I look at the Green Party messaging, if they are trying to attract republicans as much as democrats, it’s weird. The comms are full of Republican third rails like social justice, the carousel says that the Green Party is the birthplace of the green new deal, the rail against corporate power. Now this isn’t to say there wouldn’t be anyone on the right that wouldn’t be cool with these ideas, but to frame it in these terms goes against decades of Republican talking points and programming.

It’s not like support for the green new deal is something of a question on the right. They have been upset about the non-green new deal since FDR passed it, and I’ve never seen a single Republican politician or talking head have anything but disdain for the green new deal. As you point out, they didn’t promote it because they like it, but as a way to knee cap AOC which backfired.

If you start with the belief that I hold that the Green Party has no chance of winning, which seems like a reasonable starting point. Every voter that would have voted for Harris and instead votes for stein is net 1 vote for trump and every voter that would have voted for trump and instead votes for stein is net 1 vote for Harris.

I scroll around gp.org and it doesn’t have anything that looks like it’s aimed at attracting Republican voters. I do see a lot of stuff that seems like it could be aimed at attracting leftist and crunchy democratic voters. That’s not a criticism or anything, if that’s where their policy values are, that’s perfectly fine. But I just struggle to really think there are a ton of people about to vote for trump that are going to end up on that website and think “oh wow, finally a party that actually wants to work towards social justice.”

As someone that is left of the Democratic Party I recognize a lot of the things on this website, it’s a lot of the things the democrats have been promising and failing to deliver for a long time. Perhaps because so many of the talking points and policies are so familiar and feel so comfortable to me as someone who is disappointed in the democratic party’s failure to deliver on these things I find it hard to believe that republicans are looking at this site and thinking “I’ve found my people”

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

The title in the image

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If the republicans thought that the Green Party was going to be an attractive option for their voters in 2000 they certainly adopted an odd strategy

https://web.archive.org/web/20050912163938/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm

Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president.

The ads by the Republican Leadership Council will begin airing Monday in Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, all states that are part of Gore's base and where Nader is polling well. The group plans to spend more than $100,000 at first and hopes to raise more over the weekend.

It’s not some crazy conspiracy either, the Republican Leadership Council explained the ad buys in this way

The Republican Leadership Council, a centrist GOP group, has been helpful to Bush before, airing ads during the Republican primaries critical of challenger Steve Forbes. Several members of the RLC board were early Bush supporters.

The RLC ads will run initially in four markets: Eugene and Portland, Ore.; Madison, Wis., and Seattle.

Mark Miller, the group's executive director, said the ads are partly a response to commercials being run by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, which argue that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

"Ralph Nader doesn't believe that," Miller said. "Ralph Nader and his supporters are not backing down because they believe Al Gore has had numerous broken promises."

Miller added that some of Nader's supporters have bragged that Nader has never had help from "soft money," the unrestricted donations used by parties and interest groups.

"We'll put an end to that," Miller said.

You might notice how the answer doesn’t really make any sense, a pro Bush Republican PAC wanted to run ads in Gore strongholds promoting Nader with the argument that Gore broke numerous promises. Why? Because groups said that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. It sounds like they are trying to counter this but then their actions fully support that idea.

Maybe some republicans could be persuaded to join the greens, but I pay attention to how people spend their money because talk is cheap. If republicans spend money to promote Nader in states they want to win, they obviously think they’ll poach more gore voters than Bush voters, it just doesn’t make sense otherwise.

I actually agree that the Green Party is staking out policy positions that both parties have abandoned, but I still think the abandoned policies they’ve picked up to champion are still more attractive to left leaning people than right leaning people.

Unless the WSJ has been taken over by liberals, owned by famous liberal Rupert Murdoch, they seem to be following a similar path now https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/jill-stein-republican-support-harris-voters-5a194ebf

So while I imagine some of these policy positions might be attractive to some disaffected republicans, republicans seem to think it will be useful to promote them. The only way that makes any kind of sense is if they think it will attract more potential Democratic Party voters than republican.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought we were just casting aspersions for fun 🤣

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It’s a nice straw man you’ve erected and if I did any of those things you might have some kind of point.

I didn’t attack anyone, I pointed out that this alternative plan is unlikely to bring about any substantive change either.

So you keep telling people to sit at home and I’ll wait for the glorious revolution, maybe if you shout down people and tell them to read more theory that’ll help. The American people are super into reading political theory.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So if you look at the policy positions of a Green Party, it tends to align more closely with voters who would traditionally vote Democratic.

Here’s their own blurb from their website

We are grassroots activists, environmentalists, advocates for social justice, nonviolent resisters and regular citizens who’ve had enough of corporate-dominated politics. Government must be part of the solution, but when it’s controlled by the 1%, it’s part of the problem. The longer we wait for change, the harder it gets. Don’t stay home on election day. Vote Green!

Considering that the Republican Party uses the phrase “social justice warrior” as an insult and to this day field candidates that reject climate change, the idea that Republican voters might choose to vote for this party over their own seems less likely to me.

The Green Party is politically left of center, so it seems reasonable to me that the people that would vote for them would be more likely to come from the group of voters more likely to cast a ballot for Harris than trump.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The most poetic death for trump would be to suffer a stroke at one of his rallies. The stroke hits and he begins to mix up words and blather nonsense. He can sense something is wrong but his bigly words are not working, he tries to tell his faithful what’s happening.

The meschia and windmilths are shooo shlaaaaad

He slurs out, those weren’t the words he wanted, but with neurons misfiring the most used pathways are trying to help. He spends minutes, all recorded for history, dying in front of his bored onlookers unable to ask for help. His years of word salad and lies have finally achieved an awful goal, no one can tell his brain is broken. For this boy that cried wolf a million times, finally the fangs of an enemy he can’t bully or bribe have sunk in deep, years of kfc fried chicken grease now blocking bloodflow to his brain.

It’s only been a few minutes, the crowd awaits some applause or laugh line, but for trump the time feels like an eternity. The pain is increasing, the fear all consuming, he collapses and dies there.

A fitting end to the man whose greatest fear was that people would realize his weird incoherent ramblings were a con.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

American checking in, this was also how I was taught to pluralize throughout my education.

The usage in the post title seemed correct to me fwiw

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They banned single use a decade ago. My family switched to reusable bags. A lot of stores realized that they could sell “reusable” plastic bags, thicker single use bags, and get around the law.

So the rollout went like this, stores gives you free plastic bags your entire life, about a week where people were told “no plastic bags, you gotta bring your own,” then the plastic bags were back but a bit different and the store would sometimes charge you a bag fee (although a lot of places effectively waived the fee). This meant that no one adapted and they continued doing what people had always done with their plastic bags, sone reuse, mostly discard.

People always complain about unintended consequences of laws, I’ve always gotten the impression from those people they would prefer we don’t make the laws. I would love it though if we could iterate on our laws faster than, pass the law, every company finds a loophole a week later, close loophole after a decade of unintended consequences.

And yea, having reusable bags is not difficult.

view more: ‹ prev next ›