Eh, threatening to split the vote might in theory get some campaign promises, but such promises are likely to evaporate when things get down to it.

Meanwhile if you actually hold a persistent presence in the house or senate, particularly when it’s close, you got ongoing leverage. Hell, folks like AOC, MTG, Boebert have an absurd amount of national influence for being elected by merely a singular district.

While true, I have been scratching my head wondering why this rash of ads is happening, why they are so intent on making sure everyone knows their election participation is available to all.

One possibility: if you sit it out, people will know and blame you if your candidate loses.

Another possibility: if you vote, and the “wrong” person wins, you’ll be suspected of voting for the “wrong” person.

I don’t know which they are going for, but it has tickled my “creepy” meter, and this was before I saw it associated specifically with Trump/Vance (the ads I’ve seen mention no candidate and just seems a vague go out and vote pitch)

If it is a plan, it’s pretty dumb. Of all places this act could sway the results, Oregon and Washington are pretty low on the list.

Hitler has only got one ball…

People voted against however things were because of the pandemic. Trump was in charge, so he caught the general dissatfication with everything.

Now the sting of inflation last year likely has a lot of those same people again upset at how things are and vote for change again, whoever it will be.

Also, 2020 was the most accessible election in history, with so much flexibility for remote voting and so many people not stuck at work unable to find time to vote. The gop has been changing that, locking down absentee voting more, successfully getting voting id laws passed, and reducing early voting sites and hours. People are too busy working at their workplace again, and access to voting is reduced.

Note that a lot of the people that are in trouble this time are hundreds of miles inland in mountains… .

The shockingly high number of people with high end phones are still, by global standards, pretty damn rich.

Well technically the ‘minimum’ has almost no bottom. One tortured example, if you had a single voter per state for the biggest 11 states all vote for one candidate, but every other one of the 118 million eligible voters in other states voted the other way, then those 11 people will win.

I can understand the strategy this time

One of the big motivators for the left is that Trump has made credible threats about undermining votes and folks have signed up for it. A fear of having your voice forever silenced in the political system is a strong motivator. You can see because pundits for Trump keep trying to turn it around and say “nuh uh, the Democrats are the ones that will take away your voice”, which generally rings hollow because there’s zero history or rhetoric in the Democratic party to even suggest that.

This could be the sort of rhetoric those Republicans have been wanting. A Democrat proposing a fundamental change to the biggest election that everyone knows would usually prevent a Republican win for that office. We wouldn’t have had either Republican president in the last 30 years. This could energize scared Republicans or feed the “but both sides” distraction.

It may make tons of sense, but it’s a huge risk of scaring people to vote against Democrats that might have otherwise sat it out.

It’s not the story in general, it’s the “but always a man” that’s objectionable.

If it weren’t for that “but always a man”, there would be no issue. Celebrating “but always a man” is the issue driving objections here.

That’s one hell of a strawman to invent and ascribe to folks who have no whiff of implying minorities shouldn’t receive representation.

Think the problem is you’ll get obliterated from the market by the psychopaths.

Problem is in practice, I suspect something is pretty wrong in most teams.

Some common examples come to my mind:

• Management hears “talk about what you’ve done and what you will do” so great time to sit in and take notes for performance review, and it becomes a “make sure management knows you spent all your time and did really impressive stuff” meeting. Also throws a kink in “things I need help with” as there’s always the risk that management decides you aren’t self sufficient enough if they hear you got stuck, so you also need to defend why you got stuck and how it isn’t your fault.
• The people who feel like everyone needs to know the minutia of their trials and tribulations including all the intermediate dead ends they went down on the way to their final result. Related to the above, but there are people who think to do this even without the need to impress management.
• The people who cannot stand to “take it offline” and will stop everything to fully work a problem while everyone is still ostensibly supposed to stay in the meeting despite having nothing to do with the two people talking (sometimes even just one, a guy starts talking to himself as he tries to do something live).
• Groups that are organized but have very little common ground. An “everything must be scrum” company sticks a guy who does stuff like shipping and receiving into a development team and there’s no ‘scrum-like’ interaction to be had and yet, there he is wasting his time and having to talk about stuff no one else on that meeting has a need to hear either.

Resonates with my experience. A company that comes from nothing to be successful is likely to have a good leader. That hugely successful company that attracted the sharks and one of those managed to gain leadership? Bad times ahead…

I never really paid much attention to him, but to the extent I expressed skepticism about him folks would generally act like I was too cynical.

Yeah, that localization was one of the reasons that was so well loved. The PSP redid all that and while still enjoyable, it wasn’t quite as compelling as the WD effort.

As I said, I’ve dealt with logging where the variable length text was kept as plain text, with external metadata/index as binary. You have best of both worlds here. Plus it’s easier to have very predictable entry alignment, as the messy variable data is kept outside the binary file, and the binary file can have more fixed record sizes. You may have some duplicate data (e.g. the text file has a text version of a timestamp duplicated with the metadata binary timestamp), but overall not too bad.

The bigger problem is […] trans […].

Such a transphobic statement.

I still have weird glitches where applications don’t seem to update on screen (chrome and firefox, both natively doing wayland).

Lack of any solution for programmatic geometry interaction. This one has been afflicted with ‘perfect is enemy of good’, as the X way of allowing manual coordinates be specified is seen as potentially too limiting (reconciling geometry with scaling, non-traditional displays), so they do nothing instead of proposing an alternative.

The different security choices also curtail functionality. Great, better security for input, uh oh, less flexibility in input solutions. The ‘share your screen’ was a mess for a long time (and might be for some others still). Good the share your screen has a better security model, but frustrating when it happened.

Inconsistent experience between Wayland implementations. Since Wayland is a reference rather than a singular server, Plasma, Gnome, and others can act a little different. Like one supporting server side decorations and another being so philosophically opposed to the concept that they refuse to cater to it. While a compositing window manager effectively owned much of the hard work even in X, the X behavior between compositors were fairly consistent.

I’ve been using Plasma as a Wayland compositor after many failed attempts, and it still has papercuts.