Does this community allow satire content?

I saw somewhere that Bazzite was good for purpose built gaming rigs. I have yet to try it out though. My gut have to change it if I don’t like how it runs.

That’s nice! Here the transit rules say only in a carrier which doesn’t work with two 60lb. dogs. Even if the rules changed tomorrow the other riders would be mad if you did.

The US doesn’t just have terrible public transit but there’s also terrible culture around the public transit we do have.

I wish we had better transit here. I hate driving but, as you said, have to because there’s no better solutions.

Are pets allowed on public transit in the UK/Europe?

As of two days ago we are official a Microsoft Windows free household (except when my wife is WFH).

The holdout was our gaming PC but I put Bazzite on it because who wants to use Windows 11?

Yeah, I was referring more to the behavior in court since I didn’t know anything about the actual events leading to the charges.

The behavior described in the article strongly reminded me of some relatives who had bi-polar disorder.

I read the article and the whole thing screams mental illness to me.

Not in the UK so this is the first time hearing about this but was there ever an assessment to that extent? Or are these two just that cold and calculating that it was all an act?

1. It was sarcasm
2. A settlement is not a conviction
3. I actually checked before posting and found no evidence of even a settlement. If you have something that shows otherwise, please share it.
4. It was sarcasm (adding this again since you seemed to miss it)

Woah, woah, woah! The US believes in innocent until proven guilty. The alleged child rapist should get the benefit of the doubt. After all, does that sound like the behavior of a 34 time felon, confirmed adult rapist, insurrectionist, twice impeached, traitor like Donald J. Trump?

2.71Tb/515 series for TV, 6.28Tb/1176 titles in Movies.

Almost everything in MKV because that’s what I prefer.

I use Plex so it’s organized according to their requirements.

Everything is stored with a redundant backup on a Synology NAS with 6/9 HDD bays filled, totaling 48Tb in total storage space.

I run two servers (one on the Synology, one on a NUC-type Asus box) along with all my other systems.

Oh, and I have dual antenna tuners connected as well for live TV, DVR and playback.

Exactly! My drives are all sitting at about 40°C but they’ll get up to 50°C at the hottest.

I run a fan because I have it in a wall mounted case but when I had it on a shelf it wasn’t actively cooled and never got higher than it does now.

It is in our basement though and it’s only ever gotten to 27°C down there a few times and that was without A/C.

Ok, though it’s not bs because I actually sourced my statement and didn’t contradict myself.

Go ahead and block me. You’re clearly twisting my words to fit what you want to think.

Why crop out the second sentence?

You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.

Not even remotely

Definition of not even remotely - Reverso English Dictionary

adverb

not in the slightest degree

The two situations are not even remotely similar. Her explanation was not even remotely believable. The two events are not even remotely connected.

Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I’ll just go ahead and block.

If you get so upset over someone calling out your contradictory statements perhaps you should take an internet break.

No I didn’t. If you fix one the system is still broken, meaning one cannot have a “bigger role” as they all cause a failure in the US justice system. You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.

Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.

Contradictory by definition means inconsistent and going from “not remotely” to “not as big a role” is inconsistent. “Not remotely” means not at all and “not as big a role” is inconsistent with “not at all”.

I didn’t say “don’t fix anything because so much is broken” so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.

I’m just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was “grand juries aren’t remotely the problematic part” to “they’re not the biggest problem”.

You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don’t get mad at me for your own spurious claim.

Grand jury decisions aren’t remotely the problematic part.

This is wrong and it’s what I responded to.

A grand jury refusing to indict might mean the evidence wasn’t sufficient or it might mean the prosecutor didn’t really want an indictment.

I’d personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.

Personally I’d say the issue with the US justice system is that it’s a system full of problems and Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.

None of these problems has a “bigger role” than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken. This is just one representation of the endemic issues within the US system of government.

That’s not true at all.

Opening paragraph:

Within weeks of each other in 2014, a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, and another in Staten Island, New York, both declined to indict police officers in the deaths of unarmed black men: Ferguson’s eighteen-year-old Michael Brown and New York’s forty-three-year-old Eric Garner.Nationwide protests involving thousands erupted in the wake of the grand juries’ decisions. The protests fostered widespread criticism of the institution of the grand jury, prompting calls for its abolition as part of broader criminal justice reform. But federal and state grand juries have long been the subject of immense criticism from scholars, defense attorneys, and activists.The recent controversies merely drew public attention to flaws in the grand jury system that had been there all along.

The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.

No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.

The expression “a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich” is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.

“A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.”

The prosecutor, very much, can influence a grand jury’s decision on whether to indict.

The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.

Should verb

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions.

I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn’t.

The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).

Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering’s opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been “no”.

America shouldn’t be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.

Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.

I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.

A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.

Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America’s rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I’d say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.

In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the “policing” role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.

Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.