Well, ackshually, Linux is just a kernel… /s

You know what? A young Fassbender would have been a great Feyd-Rautha.

I mean, McAvoy was the God Emperor…

Oh, Canada!

Hear me out, but aren’t these people supposed to be professional?

Wondering whether “happy” or “angry” variants of a person will show up should stop being a thing around sixteen to eighteen years of age.

Maybe thes story should read: “Trump grossly unfit for office and the Republican party is so badly broken that they can’t manage to replace him”?

Again, it’s “Don’t quote the troll”. Some of us learned this in Usenet in the 1990s.

Saying “This is bullshit” or “You’re weird” without engaging with their ideas stops the contagion from spreading.

It is, though. Studies in disinformation have proven this. This is why right-wing bullshitters are so eager to engage in debate: just getting the chance to show up and be refuted in a legitmate setting, like a major newspaper, gives them an audience for the ideas and credibility, that their position is one worthy of refute.

This is how we got the alt-right in 2015: by taking neo-Nazis seriously.

This is what the media doesn’t understand, and why fact-checkers are getting–correctly–rolled on social media. Every time you bring up one of these lies, even to fact check it–especially to fact-check it–you give it credibility.

This is why the Harris/Walz campaign’s tactic of ridicule is working so well. Instead of saying “No, you’re wrong about XXX because YYYY and ZZZZ”, they’re saying “What is wrong with you? You’re weird.” The latter doesn’t give the lie any oxygen.

Nope, they weren’t

To quote their own R&D lead: "Pfizer’s head of vaccine and research and development, Kathrin Jansen, had said on November 8 that they “were never part of the Warp Speed”. They did receive a large initial order, but they didn’t partake of Warp Speed for R&D. They did, however, get funding from European governments.

Moderna was the only completely successful recipient of Warp Speed funding. AstraZeneca was the other one, but their offering had issues with blood clotting.

Demonizing and downplaying and sowing doubt on the credibility of public health did incredible damage. One of the reasons the US suffered as badly as it did is because the Trump admin treated it like a PR attack on Trump, instead of like a legitimate crisis, which it was.

Trump’s failure is commonly assumed to have killed almost half-million people. And that’s just Trump’s response to COVID, turning vaccine hesitancy into a mainstream right-wing shibboleth is going to be a gift that keeps giving.

Warp speed also didn’t really help that much. Of the recipients, only Moderna’s was successful, and Pfizer wasn’t part of the program. And that’s before we get into insider trading allegations and how it didn’t coordinate with anyone internationally.

The pandemic kind of wallpapered over it, but at the time we were looking down the tubes at a recession and a trade war, and Trump had by that point gotten rid of most of the competent cabinet that kept him in check.

If a 2008 crisis hit, it would have been bad.

People tend to forget how badly he fucked up the pandemic response. Imagine his cronies instead of Bush and Obama’s people in '08. We’d be in a depression by now.

“Duped” is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence.

“Liberal” doesn’t mean what many people think it means.

It doesn’t mean “leftist” or “progressive” or “humane”. There might be some overlap, but these are not the same things, despite conservatives trying to define them as such.

Yes it is.

You might not wish it to be, but fact-checking absolutely does amplify fake news, especially if you give details.

A simple “this story is bullshit” is all that’s needed

And now you, the mainstream media, are amplifying it and giving it oxygen.

It’s like y’all never learned the old Usenet adage: “don’t feed (quote) the trolls”.

Russia comes to mind.

You really should read Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance to understand why this is important, and why “the only way to counter speech is with more speech” isn’t just wrong, it’s actually counterproductive.

Here’s the short version, if it helps.

Yeah, XP was pretty good.

I was a young sysadmin during this era, I don’t know if I agree with this sentiment. It got tolerable by the time of the last service pack, but it was a security nightmare otherwise and didn’t offer much over Win2k.

That said, I’m not a Windows fan in general, but I’d class the following as the “good” ones:

• NT 3.5 (user-mode GDI FTW!)
• Phone 7.0 (this was probably what I’d call the Practically Perfect version of Windows. WP7 is just so good)
• NT 3.1 gets an honourable mention
• 8 (after WP7, this is the first version of Windows that was pretty much stable on day one. Say what you will about the UI, the core was the best Microsoft has ever one; ditto fir Server 2012)
• 10 (8 but with refinement; I’m cautious putting it here because you can see the genesis of the decisions that gave us 11)
• Vista (a lot of what people like about 7 really came from Vista, like the WDDM driver model and the improved security infrastructure; Vista, like NT, came out before hardware was commonly available that could run it)

Anchoring the bottom

• 98 & ME (IE integrated everywhere and the security nightmare it begat deserves a special place in hell)
• 1.0 (you had to be there, but this thing made Atari TOS look sophisticated)
• 95 pre-OSR2 (VxDs, DLLs and a login screen you could bypass with an escape key!)
• NT4 (it wasn’t bad, per se, but I still resent how unstable it was versus 3.5)
• CE and pre-5.0 Mobile (hey, guess what, replacing your battery wipes your device because we didn’t implement persistent storage!)
• 11 (10 without most of the redeeming features, plus an Android launcher for a Start menu. Now with extra spyware!)

A lot of people really like 7 and 2000, but I tend to think of those as polish releases of Vista and NT4. They’re Microsoft eventually fixing their mistakes, after having everyone drag on them for years.

Tell me again how both sides are the same?

They’re so desperate for a horse race that it’s cringeworthy

I hate to say this, but you’re probably living in a bit of a bubble. I know I was.

A lot of men, across all age ranges, tend to lean fascist. There’s a lot of reasons for this, but the core problem is that progressive neoliberalism does a terrible job speaking to cis-het male anxieties, while fascism welcomes them with open arms.

It’s all bullshit, of course, but at least they’re being heard.

Progressive politicians really need to let the 1990s go. Third-way triangulation worked great then, but it’s ineffective now.

Oil is fungible, lesbianism is not.

Not sure what my point is, there.