I hate fucking snap. It might be enough to make me switch distros if Ubuntu keeps up with it (which I am sure they intend to).

The continual “you have new snaps” or whatever it was message every time I’m just trying to have a web browser open made me eventually figure out how to install firefox for real on all of my computers.

EDIT: I think you may have convinced me to try out Debian on my next OS installation.

Yes, and they do.

I remember the summer of 2016, when I was playing Pokemon Go in the parks and people I had never talked to and that lived nearby were playing it next to me. We were all celebrating when we caught a pokemon when we were after, and comparing which ones we’d caught with each other.

At the time I thought…who would buy Trump’s conman routine? Who actually thinks that the country is in a terrible enough place that we need to elect this person who seems to actively hate the country and seemed to want to set the entire thing on fire?

I left my Californian home and went back to my original state to visit my family. We went to several different areas of the state in fall of 2016 because my wife was from a rural area and I originally grew up in a slightly more suburban area. I saw the signs in the yards, I saw the discontent, and I saw how people did not seem to be reacting the same way to his craziness. I saw how casually they would put on his rants in the background while talking about other issues. I saw how some of them were amused by his antics. It had been a couple of years since I had last been back and it once again struck me how much worse the area appeared to be from the last time I was there. I was in a rural area when the “Access Hollywood” tape dropped. People seemed to visibly shrink at even the mention of the news. I thought he was done for, and that this was a bridge too far for his supporters to cross. That people would vote third party, or not vote at all. I did not get the sense that my thoughts were shared by those around me.

When I came back to California, people were talking about the debates. It was sunny and nice out, and people would talk about the projects they had going on in their houses, or they’d talk about work related affairs. People were sometimes amused by Trump’s antics, but everyone uniformly thought it was impossible for him to win the election. Having seen what I had seen in the weeks prior, I was no longer one of these people. “They’ll never let him win”, one of my co-workers said. I was stunned…who are “they”? Does the rest of the country actually believe this?

It turns out quite a few of them did. Many people thought there was just simply no way that Trump would win, because either the system was already rigged against him and would not allow him to win, or because the country was just not in dire enough straits to elect such a madman (as I once thought).

Hindsight is 20/20 but when I thought it was bizarre that he was even a viable candidate at one point in 2016, and I saw the decaying state where I grew up, I thought “if he wins the election, then we are in a much worse state as a country than I thought”. And we undoubtedly are.

Of course he won, but the reason that I have this somewhat rambling response to this question is that the answer to “why is he still in the race?” ultimately comes down to the overall state of this country.

He is in this race because this is where we are as a country: barely able to imagine a possible future that is brighter than the present, because we are still caught up in degenerative non-sense that keeps us thinking that our broken down towns, and our poor social bonds are caused by some horde of “others” instead of their true causes: our ever-widening wealth inequality, our ever-decaying moral responsibilities to each other, and our national instinct to absolve ourselves of our responsibilities by claiming that not only is it correct to be forever self-serving, but that even the idea of altruism is a lie.

Tech company management loves the idea of ridding themselves of programmers and other knowledge workers, and AI companies love selling the idea of non-productivity impacting layoffs to unsavvy companies (tech and otherwise).

Maybe I’m missing something then, how would you pass a DNS challenge?

I agree, if you’re putting your internal domain names into the public DNS you do not need a star cert.

I agree that this is a good idea, but I wanted to add that if someone owns a domain already, they can also use that internally without issue.

If you own a domain and use Let’s Encrypt for a star cert, you can have nice, well secured internal applications on your network with trusted certificates.

Swim laps ya maggot!

/s /drill instructor

But defenders like you

Lol, I literally have never heard of the lady until this thread, but sure it’s me with an agenda.

With better reading comprehension instead of “man get real angry when word men used to describe things men do generally” even those quotes aren’t saying what you think they’re saying…and that’s with no attribution or sources so I don’t even know if they’re misquotes.

EDIT: Also you sidestepped your completely invalid claim that marital rape was illegal always because you argue in bad faith

All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.

She’s saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn’t saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the “free act of a free woman” because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.

Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn’t like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn’t like the Barbie movie.

Yep the best way to start a new moral panic is by recycling tired tropes from an older one (drug / weed panic of the 80s-90s).

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

Feminism suffers from being very broad.

Bah dum tiss 🥁

No

I think you’ve (perhaps inadvertantly) hit the nail on the head by drawing a comparison to revolutionary groups. Even plagued by the encroaching mythology and rhetoric it’s easy to see why the same group of revolutionary boosters are today’s reactionary retrogrades:

In revolutionary times, monied interests and industry desired to evade England’s taxes, and today those same groups seek to continue perpetually evading the taxes of America’s government.

In other words, the rich fucks think they’ll be able to fair better under Trump as dictator than they would facing the occasional failed attempt at tax reform by Democrats.

The gravy seals are partially led by the nose by the exact same group of affluent pig fuckers as the minutemen and, in other cases, they aren’t being led as they simply are the same rich group.

Among the other elements present at the January 6th insurrection were sizable numbers of the American landlord class, some even chartering private flights to attend and participate.

The REALLY odd part about all of this, imho, is that the type of person who previously fought on the side of freedom, now is mislead to be acting on behalf of the oppressors.

I think there’s some American mythology causing you to see things this way. In short, the American revolution was fueled by Washington recruiting a lot of drunks and fuck ups, and after they won the war they wanted Washington to be king. Similar to Scotland and the movie Braveheart, the mythology has gotten so popular that people start to think the majority or even all of the fighting force was ideologically aligned to some idea of freedom and inalienable rights or something. It wasn’t.

Very yes

deleted by creator

roadcraft

LOL

Oh boy, RIP to the inbox of anyone arguing with this guy.

At one point around the enaction of Obama-care there was a dude with a combover that came around to our office to tell us that “yes, healthcare costs are high in America, but I’m here to tell you that insurance companies are not the problem.”

So here he is: a guy lying to himself about his hair loss with a full-time job going around to different companies saying how insurance companies are not the problem…surely he couldn’t be lying, a waste, or a lying waste.