I agree with your first part, but I dont think I’ve ever used a windows, osx or linux computer that hasnt had issues connecting to printers, the problem there isnt with the computer.

The popular well crafted ones are, but not all are well crafted.

I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris bribes donations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.

If they do that the corporate Dems would buy up all of DC’s champagne. There is nothing they want more than to evict the left wing elements of the party and force them into electoral irrelevance, why would AOC et al do that for them?

You absolutely should, assuming that you are a nerd it’s IMO his best book. I have a lovely hard cover edition.

The UK is also one of the worst countries in the world for solar power

Thats what you get for being an island at a northenly latitude.

I literally just asked to clarify your position, that you chose to project transphobia onto me from that says more about you than me.

Fair enough, I think its a rather bizarre take that we shouldnt try stop people who havent fully developed their reasoning capacities from harming themselves but at least you’re consistent.

Just for clarity, are you saying that all rules and regulation which discriminate against young people are inherently bad? e.g. banning them from consuming tobacco, having gambling adverts placed on their shows or being allowed in nightclubs?

No, they dont

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.

That’s interesting, though their own map benefits from their definition of B (the number of boundary cuts an arbitrary line segment needs to cross), because this metric does not take into account how far away the elements on the map are from each other. E.g. the cuts going from northern to southern Africa count as much as a “distortion” as the ones separating Indonesia and South America.

Ultimately, “objective” best depends on the metric you choose and that is a subjective decision.

There was also a Harvard paper that was the main justification for austerity in the UK given its conclusion that past a certain GDP/debt ratio al sorts of bad things happen.

Turned out to be an excel error skipping 1/4 of their data and when re-run with the whole set the effect vanished. Horrible abuses of excel and csv files are by no means limited to any one country.

Ha no, I just have an extension to automatically add that to wiki links as I dislike the newer skin. I totally forgot it was there!

Its very common in all sorts of fields, Max Planck said that physics advances one dead professor at a time

deleted by creator

If you dont understand the difference between trying to start by winning a mayoralty of a town of 10,000 people then some state legislature seat and trying to win the president of the USA without an existing power base I dont know what to tell you. I cant break that down to being any simpler for you as to why starting with the later before you’ve managed the former is pointless.

So do what I literally said before, build up a party, take places that you have a realistic chance of winning, build your parties power base and then take larger constituencies. That’s how a an organisation actually interested in political power would go about it with multiple years out. Not trying to jump to the highest level office in the land where the mathematical reality of the system insists that that one of the top two candidates will win.

Ah yes I’d forgotten about all those elections in a winner takes all system where a candidate was polling at 1% the day before election turned out to win it. Your obnoxious posting style really helped me remember that absolutely true fact.

So why dont you just vote for yourself? Clearly thats the only way to agree with your candidate 100% and it clearly doesnt matter to you what the odds of winning are.

If you want to get an actual left winger into office in the us you have exactly three options, entryism into the democrat party and pushing a left winger in the primaries (ie bernie, maybe AOC in the future), building up a new party starting by taking local offices in progressive places until the dems either have to pivot to the left or are replaced by you, revolution.

Ignoring reality and voting for a third party in the presidential election is nothing more than posturing at best and actively enabling the worst elements in society at worst.