I have no evidence of her motives. Campaign donations are public record, and she receives funding from oil companies. The idea that politicians are not swayed by finance is absurdly naive. They don’t need to accept that money. And, regardless whether convincing swing voters is a part of the campaign’s consideration, it should be clear that influence from corporations is not an influence. Then we could sit here an take them at their word. As it is, it’s impossible to think that millions of dollars from oil companies is not affecting the decision to make a complete u turn on supporting fracking.

They do according to the US supreme court. The court ruled in Citizens United that restricting donations from corporations was a violation of corporations’ first amendment rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

It corporations weren’t given the same rights as people, then we’d need to wonder less about what politicians’ real motives were.

That does sound better doesn’t it? If I were a presidential candidate, I would definitely say “We support fracking because we need Pennsylvania” instead of “We support fracking because our campaign has accepted millions of dollars from the oil industry”.

Without evidence I will say it’s more likely that she has significant funding from the fracking industry and is under the thumb of rich executives. The difference is that they likely understand that supporting fracking could cost them the election, but they know that by not supporting it they lose a huge source of funding. They have weighed the costs, benefits and risks, and decided it’s a risk worth taking.

A good solution is to get corporate money out of politics. There are narrow ways to achieve that, but a broad solution that fixes a lot of problems is to end corporate personhood. This organization has made steady progress toward that and I think is worth supporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_to_Amend. Considered signing up for their email list.

Another solution is more wisely voting. People don’t vote in primary elections, but they’re more important than the general elections. They determine what the field of candidates looks like. Vote in primary elections. You don’t necessarily want to vote in primary of the party you most align with though. An obvious example where you’d vote in a different party is if you live in a gerrymandered district. There’s a near 100% chance the gerrymandered party candidate will win. It doesn’t matter who the other candidates are. Vote for the least bad candidate in the other party. You won’t get everything you want, but you’ll get more than you would otherwise. It will also force the party to change.

That’s not the only time you’d vote in a party you don’t align best with. Maybe you’re relatively happy with all of the candidates in a party, so why split hairs if you’d be ok with any of them? There are so many considerations that the only advice is to keep an open mind about party membership, evaluate where you make the most impact (not what looks the most like you) and vote in every damn election, primaries included.

What an embarassingly obsequious viewpoint.

Ubuntu benefited from an open community for years, and when it came time to create a solution for a problem, they chose to develop something and not share it with community that helped them get where they are now. That’s a straight up asshole move.

I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.

It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.

I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.

I don’t know that it’s technically harmonization, but sometimes when wolves howl at the same time, they will each choose a different pitch. Presumably it’s so the group sounds like it has as many individuals as possible.

There’s no shortage of well meaning dog owners who don’t know any better.

deleted by creator

I visited for a few days once. If you like the outdoors, the parks in the surrounding area are nice. Camelback in the city is packed and not particularly fun.

Overall, I found that Phoenix was not at all a place I’d like to spend time. You might try Sedona just a little north of Phoenix. I haven’t been there, but I hear it’s not Phoenix, and in general seems more aligned with the things you mentioned you like.

I found a single prompt that works for every level except 8. I can’t get anywhere with level 8 though.

Rather that individuals setting up or seeking out an instance, I could see institutes whose members produce content using it, but they’d have to really care about avoiding YouTube. Blender foundation is an example, and they have a peer tube instance, but maybe universities, nonprofits, or research institutions.

It’s also a lower case k in km.

The scientific definition of “fruit” is the ripened ovary of a flowering plant. This differs from the normal usage so some things not commonly considered fruit, such as tomatoes and the pods of soybeans, are fruits by this definition. Flowering plants (not all plants have flowers) have male and female anatomical structures. Many species have both structures in one flower. Some species have flowers that contains either male or female structures. These flowers can either be on the same plant (monoecious), like watermelon and corn, or on different plants (diecious), like papaya. The ovary, what will become the fruit, is a female anatomical structure, and it makes no sense to talk about a male fruit for any type of flower. Male flowers produce pollen, which fertilizes the embryo in an ovary, but male flowers themselves don’t produce fruit.

When I see nonsense like this, I then distrust the entire YSK.

I am unusual in that my teeth are very tightly spaced. An interdental brush is probably great for a lot of people, and I imagine it’s nicer than flossing if you can fit it between your teeth. I got a pretty basic $100 model. My only complaint is that it’s loud.

A water flosser takes 30 seconds. (I’m in this thread shilling for water flossers.)