Was that supposed to be a spoiler tag? What client does that work with?
NotAnotherLemmyUser
joined 1 year ago
Agreed, this is what the Forward Party is trying to do. They want to help people get elected at all levels that will support and help make changes so that we're not stuck in some 2-party system.
Although, I think that approval voting or STAR voting is better than ranked-choice voting.
So, it is possible to incentivize clouds to rain with lasers. It's part of "cloud seeding" tech that is already done today in Dubai.
But this just triggers rain on certain clouds, it's not going to trigger a hurricane.
This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
What's worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.
What caused her to change her mind were the people that had "friendly arguments" and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.
She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:
Don't assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they're a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.
Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can't present effective arguments if we don't understand where the other side is coming from.
Stay calm - She thought that "[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness". When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn't over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.
Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn't have to defend our positions because they're so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.
You can't expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.
What do you mean by "allow you to kill a 3rd party"?
Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn't actively breaking into your car?
This is something that's going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.
You will be judged based on other's perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.
So, someone trying to "drive slowly" through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.
Misleading title, this was a Missouri State case, not a federal one.
That being said, there are way too many innocent people getting killed for crimes they did not commit.
The only purpose of the death penalty is revenge. It has no place in a modern society.
It really bothers me when journalists don't list out which laws specifically were passed/signed.
Even better if they could link to the bill text itself, yet instead they just link to a similar article on their own site.
Nah, Cygnus beat you by about 14 min.
(On a serious note, had you already heard about someone else being convicted under the new security law? It also sounds like they're talking about how the sentence was increased from 2 years to 7-10 years.)
We have a little more information now and it is interesting:
The article starts with:
The Hawaii man suspected in former President Donald Trump’s assassination attempt on Sunday is a long-time Democrat, donating exclusively to the party’s candidates 19 times since 2019, records show.
Then later on it mentions:
Routh, 58, claimed in other social media posts that he supported Donald Trump in his first presidential campaign in 2016 — but later became disillusioned after his chosen candidate won office.
The article you linked was updated, looks like he did have a gun and was spotted while aiming through the fence:
Investigators found the suspect had left behind his “AK-style” rifle, as well as two backpacks, one of which contained ceramic tile, at the scene, Bradshaw said.
Thanks! It doesn't work through a regular web browser or with Voyager.
Looks like it does work with Eternity as well though.