A lot of people see it as needlessly dragging a conflict on, but NATO (probably) knows what it's doing, and has had plans for scenarios like this for years. Russian escalation in the region isn't exactly new, and it's the sort of campaign that NATO as a group will define its legitimacy on.

I'm sure that if both sides wanted to hurt the other they'd do so, NATO especially so - but to both sides it's ultimately a game. NATO will flirt with weapons, and Russia will throw citizens at the problem and use grief/loss to restore the "fatherland". It's why I don't see an end to the conflict for as long as Putin is in power.

I don't disagree that reform is needed, but I do disagree that voting for a third candidate is useless, purely on the basis that they work elsewhere. My point is that America isn't special, and a party that won't necessarily win can affect policy without ever truly seeing power.

You...clearly misunderstood my initial post, and that's really funny.

My point isn't that you shouldn't care if they win or not. That's absolutely ridiculous. My point is that you shouldn't choose to vote for someone purely because they have a chance of winning, over someone that aligns better with your political views.

Sometimes I can't believe this app is free...

That's the argument, no?

I don't give a fuck if America has more than "two" parties, but either one of two things is true:

• Americans are more aligned with the two parties than people would like to believe.
• Many people won't vote for a third candidate because they feel that their vote would be "wasted", because it wouldn't contribute to one of the "likely" parties to win.

If I had to guess, the former is probably more true than people on social media and the left would like to believe.

It's honestly a little embarrassing to see Lemmy struggle so much with this kind of thing. Even Reddit was never this bad...

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that people won't vote for a candidate they agree with because they're not going to win.

That should be painfully obvious. Similar sentiments are obvious on Reddit, Twitter, even Mastodon. Why is Lemmy so tone-deaf and blinded when it comes to opposing opinions?

Aside from all of the praise that BG3 gets, I haven't played a linear story-bssed game with such length and depth for YEARS! I got to around 70 hours of game time in my first play through, and I wasn't remotely bored, ever. For any major game to achieve this almost seemed impossible in this generation.

Genuinely one of the best episodes of any show I've ever watched.

Ok?

Because Lemmy isn't a US-only social network?

My only fear with the indie gaming industry is that many of them are starting to embrace the churn culture that has led AAA gaming down a dark path.

I would love an app like Blind that allows developers on a game to anonymously call out the grinding culture of game development, alongside practices like firing before launch and removing credits from workers. Review games solely on how the dev treated the workers, and we might see some cool corrections between good games and good culture.

This is sadly quite common, and I think by design in many places.

Rather than long, open roads having a 30mph speed and smaller residential roads at 20, the opposite is chosen, purely because councils know that they can put speed cameras there to make some money. Making roads safer through design costs money, and many roads where accidents are common are largely ignored.

It's these tactics that feed into the hysteria that these measures are an attack on motorists. While I largely agree with the rules, many councils really take the piss. I was caught doing 24mph in a 20, but was able to overturn it because the camera was placed in the middle of a hill with a sharp enough decline to not make it legal to police.

They probably made a ton from that camera, all while the top of the hill is a small junction where people regularly crash - which is 30 and is only repaired when someone crashes into the traffic lights (not a rare occurrence).

All elections have consequences. I know that Americans like to be dramatic (especially on Lemmy, Reddit is far more tame in this regard), but voting for someone that wants to promote policies that you support is how those policies are promoted.

I say this time and time again on here, but America isn't special. Many countries have two main parties, but while third parties don't always see power, they maintain Influence everywhere. Hell, you can argue that the Tea Party, Brexit, Irish Unification, MAGA, Immigration reform in Germany, all of this is due to influence outside of the main parties.

Well, you're the country with two parties... The Greens run my area.

Why do you care if the person you voted for wins?

Outside of "not letting the other person win", you should vote for who you align with, or who represents you best.

If more people stopped caring about voting for "the viable candidate", we'd probably see a third party in American politics...

How is this going to work while OpenAI currently burns through an absolute ocean of cash to keep improving its services? Alongside this, a good software engineer or applied scientist can make close to $1m a year. While I do think professionals should earn what their value is to an employer, OpenAI still loses a ton of money.

As someone that works in AI, I think most of us know it's full of people trying to make a quick buck while investors will stupidly throw money at it. OpenAI is ultimately the figurehead of this market though, because at least the big companies can prop their AI offerings with the money they make from shopping, cloud, ads, etc. The second OpenAI looks weak and needs money, the vultures will slice off a piece and we'll see the AI market reduce to a wimper - just enough for tech to focus on the next grift.

This really shouldn't have come as a surprise. Trump and MAGA came about from disillusionment in politics and the rural working-class feeling left out, with the right sensing an opportunity to say outlandish shit to stand out.

Today, women are disillusioned because they can't afford to buy a home, can't afford basic healthcare like most civilised countries, have zero workplace protections, have zero control over their own reproductive organs, and are lumped into the "DEI" category whenever the right discusses whether they should have opportunities in the workplace.

I say this every time an American article is posted around the sheer surprise that something is happening. It isn't new. Trump was preceded by Brexit and the rise of the right in Europe. Thankfully, we've also seen the implosion of the right over the last year or two, so if Harris can win then you'll all be glad to hear that it'll be a bloodbath of back-stabbing and finger-pointing as the right fight for whatever scraps are left - all while the loser sits on the sidelines shitting on their former allies for having the audacity to succeed them.

With all that said, it's a great thing, but hopefully this isn't just pushed as a women-only thing. Real change needs everyone pushing in the same direction, and that needs real unity - something a good leader can bring.

I imagine you get these questions all the time, but how did you get into stand-up, and how did you get the guts to get up on a stage and try to be funny?

I love the idea of stand-up comedy, but I've been to a few open mic nights and it almost always seems like drunk people showing off, people that are hilariously unfunny, or people in the crowd that try to shit on anyone remotely trying to entertain.

I am extremely introverted, but working as a software engineer in a consultancy where the owner wanted engineers to be on the end of phones for clients was in many ways a godsend. The secret of calls is that everyone also hates it. The secret of eye contact is that the other person hates it too, so just do it enough to show that you've tried and that's the acceptable norm.

You will never be able to block them from viewing stuff they want to see. They'll either do it through their friends devices, on other WiFi connections, or at school where networks are hilariously open or easy to bypass.

The best thing, and frankly the only thing you can do as a parent is to be engaged with them. Make them think critically on subjects, and if something they parrot back is nonsense, call them out on it. Cast that seed of doubt in their mind. If they choose to continue to watch stupid shit, that's their choice, and it's only worth stepping in if it's actively dangerous.