Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.

IANAL, but there is the presidential power to pardon. So the president could in theory give an illegal order (as long as it is an official act they have immunity) and promise a presidential pardon once the order is fulfilled (therefore extending immunity to the perpetrator). Meaning the president can entirely circumvent the UCMJ.

Linux users can’t even agree [...] so how am I supposed to pick one with any confidence?

Easy. You make a post like the OP, count the positive mentions of distros in the comments, and bam, you have your distro of choice. It's called the Linux newbie roulette and works kind of like the magic hat in Harry Potter that sorts you into your house.

Well I'm no expert on Christianity, but apparently this theology graduate here agrees with you:

https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/

So, I think it’s pretty stupid to argue whether “convicted felon” should be in his opening lede line for Wikipedia.

True though that may be, I don't think it's surprising that this would happen, and since making the post I have been falling down a rabbit hole of finding out how Wikipedia is handling situations like this, partly through taking more than a glancing look at the talk pages for the first time ever, and it's fascinating.

Currently my deepest point of descent is this sub-thread on the Admin board about the "consensus" boxes on top of talk pages being an undocumented and unapproved feature.

In Germany, Mein Kampf is banned except for educational purposes, eg in history class.

Strictly speaking this is incorrect, although the situation is somewhat complicated. There are laws that can be and were used to limit its redistribution (mainly the rule against anti-constitutional propaganda), but there are dissenting judgements saying original prints from before the end of WW2 cannot fall under this, since they are pre-constitutional. One particular reprint from 2018 has been classified as "liable to corrupt the young", but to my knowledge this only means it cannot be publicly advertised.

What is interesting though is how distribution and reprinting was prevented historically, which is copyright. As Hitlers legal heir the state of Bavaria held the copyright until it expired in 2015 and simply didn't grant license to anything except versions with scholarly commentary. But technically since then anybody can print and distribute new copies of the book. If this violates any law will then be determined on a case-by-case basis after the fact.

Der OP hat da nen Link mit Kontext oben hin gepackt, aber ich fühl mich trotzdem noch als wäre ich hier bei c/Aneurysmapfostierungen.

Yeah they knew the series might not get renewed for another season, so they threw this ending in as a way to be prepared for either eventuality.

By underlying narrative I meant the microwave background radiation plot though.

Do the lights provide the same info as the beeps?

Yes, but whether you have lights or just beeps depends on your board. I think yours does not have the lights, just the speaker pins.

So the circle is where a little speaker should be attached:

Sometimes these come with the case, but in your case not apparently or the PC guy would have attached it. You can buy these pretty cheap (one or two bucks) and they look like this:

When you have one attached and start the PC the mainboard will run some tests, and if it detects a problem there will be a pattern of beeps coming out of the speaker. You can look up what this pattern means in the handbook somebody linked above.

Carla Hinrichs bei Jung & Naiv klang da irgendwie anders.

Hab ich noch nicht gesehen, danke für den Hinweis. That said, sie ist Listenplatz Nummer 3. Das hieße wenn ich deren FAQ richtig verstanden habe sie wäre erst bei ~600.000 Stimmen/~2,1% drin.

Ich glaube allerdings nach wie vor, dass das keinen Effekt haben wird. [...] Wenn der/die eine LG Abgeordnete, der/die es vielleicht rein schafft, dann dort life vor denen protestiert, wird das denke ich eher unfreiwillig peinlich, aber sicher niemandes Abstimmungsverhalten beeinflussen.

In der Not frisst der Teufel Fliegen... Wie gesagt mir würde es sogar schon reichen wenn die da nur den Cicero machen. Einfach bei allen anderen Themen nach Gewissen abstimmen, aber vor und nach jeder Rede immer schön sagen: "Der Klimawandel muss besiegt werden!" Bei jedem Thema den Kontext zum Klimawandel suchen und hervorheben. Den Konservativen bei jeder Gelegenheit ins Gewissen reden mit "Ja aber denk doch mal einer an die Enkelkinder!" Wer weiß, vielleicht gewinnt ja diesmal die Republik...

P.S.: Stellt sich raus die haben noch kein Wahlprogramm geschrieben, wird noch verhandelt und bis "Anfang Juni" soll es fertig sein.

Es gibt ein vorläufiges Programm und es gibt eine FAQ-Seite. Liest sich auf den ersten Blick grob satisfaktionsfähig. Money Quotes:

Wie werdet ihr im Parlament abstimmen?

Natürlich nehmen wir unser gewähltes Amt ernst! Unsere Abgeordneten können, wie alle anderen, ganz normal reden und abstimmen – was wir auch tun werden! Wir selbst sagen ja, dass wir Wandel in der Politik brauchen. Wir werden also auch ernsthaft abstimmen. Wie genau, das machen wir an unseren Werten und Forderungen fest, sowie an den Ergebnissen der Runden Tische

Warum schließt ihr euch nicht mit anderen Parteien wie der Klimaliste zusammen?

Es stimmt, dass eine Aufspaltung in mehrere Parteien oder sonstige politische Vereinigungen dazu führt, dass die Gruppierungen sich gegenseitig Stimmen „wegnehmen“. Wir sind jedoch keine normale Partei, sondern wir wollen das Parlament mit vergleichsweise unkonventionellen Methoden richtig aufmischen. Mit uns wählt man also nicht nur gute Klimapolitik, sondern auch den Protest ins Parlament!

Wenn jetzt Leute, die vorher links/grün gewählt haben, stattdessen “Pöbler” wählen, die keine Ausschussarbeit machen und am Ende nicht mal abstimmen (klingt für mich so), dann kommen weniger sinnvolle Maßnahmen durch, nicht mehr.

Aktivismus kann jetzt alles mögliche heißen von Farbbeutel schmeißen bis hinter jeder Rede den Cicero machen und sagen: "Im Übrigen meine ich der Klimawandel muss weitestmöglich gestoppt werden!". Ich würde denen da im Zweifel schon erst einmal zutrauen innerhalb wenn auch am Rande der Hausordnung zu operieren, und ein Gegengewicht zur Klimawandelleugnung von AfD und Konsorten wäre glaube ich halt echt nicht schlecht. Lässt die "normalen" Grünen wie vernünftige Verhandlungspartner aussehen. Und uns läuft halt echt die Zeit davon, wir brauchen mehr Druck. Wie gesagt, ist das letzte Parlament vorm Point-of-no-return.

Muss mal gucken was die sich denn so ins Wahlprogramm geschrieben haben...

Du also ganz ehrlich, eigentlich bin ich da ja bei dir, aber bei dem hanebüchenen Schneckentempo was bei dem Thema an den Tag gelegt wird hätten wir in diesem konkreten Fall die "Pöbler" schon vor 2-3 Dekaden im Parlament brauchen können glaube ich. Jetzt sind wir mit der Situation konfrontiert das wir noch knapp 5,5 Jahre Zeit (bis 2030) haben um die globalen Treibhausgasemissionen zu halbieren(!), sonst haben wir hier echte Probleme am Arsch (sagt das IPCC). Das ist knapp eine Legislaturperiode im Europaparlament. Glaubst du echt wenn wir die gleichen Figuren hier weiter Dienst nach Vorschrift schieben lassen wird das was? Ich hab ja meine Zweifel und überlege halt ernsthaft da mal ein paar Wadenbeißer wie die LG vorbeizuschicken, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund des OP...

(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have "hallucinations", no matter their size. What's your magic way of knowing when that happens?

I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for.

Correct.

But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.

True, no human produced piece of writing can ever be truly free of bias.

That said:

Normal news article: Best effort of not applying your biases and just reporting raw facts.
Opinion news article: Intentionally applying bias to contextualise the raw facts.

That's all there is in this distinction, but that's nonetheless important I would say.

I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?

As per: http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=environmentalist

1 definition found for environmentalist

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :

environmentalist
n 1: someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution [syn: environmentalist, conservationist]

My bias is that I have been hearing from reputable sources that we are destroying or at the very least damaging the ecosystems that supports our species for all of my conscious life. Literally all of it. Doing so seems like a bad idea.

By the way, today I learned there is apparently an older application of this term in the nature-vs-nurture debate amongst anthropologists for people who favour the nurture side of the argument (n2): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/environmentalist

Anyway, people make up new words when they need them, I still don't understand the confusion...

Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done?

No, I'm saying they wouldn't self-identify as such unless it's an opinion piece, because that would be introducing bias into their articles instead of reporting on the facts.

So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic

Not really, it's just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn't mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.

Who’s not an environmentalist?

Fossil fuel companies?

It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us.

I don't know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.

Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?

Yes. Are you? I don't see the problem here.

Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn't say? That's the point.

That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it.

What? According to the article based on which we are discussing this news that is the point (allegedly). And it is unrelated to your point yes. I'm not entirely sure where you even came up with your point to be honest.

Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it.

I guess the consumers, i.e. the people of Vietnam in possession of this luxury item, would disagree with that assessment. Especially if they have sunk significant finances and/or time into their Steam account.

It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin.

Nobody said it is?

And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games.

Again, what? I'm saying people will want to keep access to something they already paid for, their games on Steam and the according metadata like savegames, multiplayer access, and such. Not sure how you managed to pull this interpretation out of what I said, but be assured it's incorrect.

It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

Since the whole logic chain that led you to this conclusion was already riddled with errors from the very beginning this is simply a non sequitur.