GreenSkree

My understanding of a patent (in the US) is that it's only for new, novel concepts, often difficult to design or conceive.

Prior art, in this context, are just examples of this concept already in use or demonstrated. If there are already examples of the idea in use by others, then your idea isn't new (and therefore not patentable).

If people want this to be acted on, then Dems need to win.

Oh, absolutely.

Both to campaign on and to act on, unfortunately.

I think there's a big difference between them making the small (but good) progress with legislation they've done this term compared to making climate a part of their campaign and bringing it up all the time. Idiots on the right will attack opponents on anything, but currently, I imagine most of the population is put off by the "she's gonna ban ur meat and stove!!1" weirdos. Sometimes not engaging is the most effective way to keep bad arguments out of the public sphere.

Plus, there's so much disinformation from the other side that you're apt to lose voters that consume any amount of that crap.

If something doesn't energize your base and it makes you lose votes from outside your base, it's a net loss to campaign on. It seems that climate change is currently one of those issues.

I'm convinced our media is hell-bent on promoting Trump at any opportunity.

I feel like Trump could do anything on that stage and the story pushed out by the media will be some weird criticism about how disappointing Harris' performance was.

Like, Trump could answer every single question with a rant about how cheeseburgers just aren't as good as they used to be and no-one would bat an eye. Then the story for weeks will be about how "Harris just wasn't detailed enough about how her economic policies. She didn't even mention how the Distiller's Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS)/cash corn ratio would change per week over the next decade or two. Harris clearly is too light on the policy front."

I hope I'm wrong, but I've come to expect the worst from our media lately.

I have no idea either. I'm guessing it's only an "issue" because Trump (and therefore Fox) won't stop talking about it.

I guess?

I'm all for voting reform, promoting easy access to voting for everyone, breaking the grip of the 2 party system, and dismantling junk like the electoral college.

But we're a little more than 2 months from a major election. It's unlikely that these ideas are going to be picked up and championed as campaign promise. So it makes me wonder why they're being parroted now. I suspect it's to highlight that our system isn't always great and discourage people from voting.

They're not saying "my vote doesn't matter", but that's kind of the vibe it gives off, while suggesting an unrealistic, idealistic solution. 🤷‍♂️

Weird. You'd think that's show up in her voting record when she was a US Senator.

Based on her votes, she was one of the most progressive in the Senate.

As bad as it is now, if Trump returns to power, he would make the Palestinian and Ukraine situations so much worse. Beyond that, we could see genocide here.

Because the situation is polarizing in American politics and unlikely to resolve any time soon, it seems unwise to push potentially unpopular policy with short-term gains that lose you an election to someone who would probably celebrate the end of Palestine and their people.

It's like complaining that the roof is leaking and wondering why no-one cares while the house is on fire.

Add an extra column to the right side of the board.

I'm one that finds the GNU/Linux naming annoying. I think calling it that is mostly silly, and am mostly annoyed at people who militantly argue it's the only way to describe a Linux OS (which aren't as common as they used to be).

To me, it's just overly verbose and pointless. For the most part, the GNU part has been implied for pretty much any mainstream form of Linux for decades. And even if it wasn't, who cares? Like, you wouldn't say that you run KDE/X11/wpasupplicant/neovim/docker/pacman/paru/systemd/GNU/Linux... Just saying KDE on Arch Linux is simpler and far more informative.

You know fascism has a definition, right? It doesn't mean "I don't like it".

Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.

I think this is overly naive and simplistic.

So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?

(I'm not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)

The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don't have any easy answer unfortunately.

• Palestine doesn't have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
• Israel's reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
• Historically, Israel's treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
• Hamas' actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.

So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes -- I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.

So, unfortunately, I think there are no "good guys" here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.