This is probably the most significant “Why did Harris lose?” article out there right now. Not because it comes to the right conclusions, but because the Brookings Institution is respected by party leaders. Politicians listen to them, and believe them, and consider them a credible, unbiased, outside perspective.

That makes it all the more troubling for the Trans community that on their shortlist of reasons Harris lost was Harris was that she was too supportive of trans people:

Second: The Trump campaign decided that Harris’ stance on transgender issues was the Willie Horton of 2024 and invested heavily in negative advertising that dominated the airwaves throughout the South.Anecdotal evidence suggests that this campaign helped weaken Harris’ effort to portray herself as a common-sense center-left candidate rather than an emissary from San Francisco.

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.

Vested interest? Literally vested stock options. Well, by now they’ve already been used to purchase stock.

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.

A list of sherriffs, then?

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.

Not true.

He can’t prevent anyone that received the code under the GPL from using (and distributing it) under the old license. He also can’t relicense code that he received under the GPL only under the new license.

If he receives a new license from the other contributors to distribute under a more restrictive license, he can do that because he has a dual license to the code and is not relying on the GPL for his right to distribute.

Gonna have to disagree with #3 - stopping Vim is not necessary for this. There’s the builtin :! command.

not being released until next year.

Don’t forget /auto, for things that get automatically mounted when you first access them (autofs)

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.