That’s a lot of emotion there. Do you want to talk about it?

All answers are correct then.

This is very much not that!

A government hosted service would have to be in compliance with record keeping requirements. Conversations like this chat group are subject to the presidential records act and would need to be kept in case of future FOIA requests.

Signal does not do that. In fact, Signal can’t do that (because they can’t see the messages). So using Signal instead of proper government communications channels is a deliberate way to not leave a paper trail. Almost like they think they have something to hide.

Since we are talking about payment systems that interact with other banking systems, they will not be actually air gapped. By the nature and purpose of the systems in question, they must have access to the physical Internet (even if it is entirely abstracted away under layers of VPNs and encryption).

Assuming them compromised is prudent. Physical access is total access.

I have yet to see credible evidence of tampering with votes or election infrastructure.

Voter suppression happened, but that looks like established praxis for US elections.

So your dear leader was democratically elected. The question is: Does that matter?

For Hitler it took 60 days from legally and lawfully obtaining chancellor ship to the first trains rolling into the first camps.

You guys are at day 16.

1. I don’t see how the supreme Court has jurisdiction over the candidate selection process for either party.
2. The VP candidate is picked by the presidential nominee in both parties, so I don’t see why Trump changing his pick should be an issue (other than to confirm 100% that he has 0 loyalty and waffles on even the most trivial issues).
3. They are not gonna swap him out.

Another reason to use Logitech mice: ease of repair. Apart from skates covering the screws on the underside, Logitech does not use glue to keep it’s mice together. And due to their popularity, replacement parts (including the battery btw) are widely available even for older models.

Only 1 concurrent player per copy in the family library. So to play together you’d still have to both buy the game.

This is the correct answer. Pi is known. What it’s decimal expansion looks like is irrelevant. It’s 1 in base Pi.

That and of course Slay The Spire, IMHO peak rogue like deck builder.

You can turn down everything to minimal (so maximal battery life) and have a perfect playing experience with that.

Yes.

War gaming can be fun, but I don’t think DnD is especially geared toward it

Isn’t like 90% of the rules for DnD just rules for combat and treasure? Literally every single class in DnD is a combat class. And when people talk about their DnD characters they say “I played this Dragonborn Cleric…” or “Multiclassed Tiefling Mage/Rouge” and not “I played this Dwarf that had really good proficiency in Persuasion and ‘Use Rope’”. [Btw is ‘Use Rope’ still a skill in newer DnD editions?].

There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
   • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
   • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?

Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

Where is the issue?

It depends. If you are the owner of a repository with multiple contributors and have rules for code review, then this makes sense. You create the PR so that someone else can say “Yep, meets our standards/tests/release schedule”.

But if you start doing stuff like this regularly you probably want to migrate the repository to a dedicated account that exists to own that repository, rather than it be your own.