Yeah, that money should be going to oil, automotive, and banking/finance oligopolies like the rest of the trillions are!

The words themselves make sense but… not for lemmy.world lmao

don’t speak like the french

The past participle of a verb is used as the passive participle (e.g. indicates the passive voice, where the patient of the verb is the subject and the agent is the indirect object). “She was killed” or “He was eaten” is in the passive voice, while “I died” or “I killed” is in the active voice. It’s normally supposed to be preceded by an auxiliary verb (in this case “be”), but news titles omit the copula among other things.

This is literally the passive voice

Active voice would be “Israeli strike kills two twins in Gaza as [their] father goes to register [their] birth” or something

What the fuck

Shhh shhh no we have to make the peasants believe every exploitable activity is an intelligent sidehustle. THEIR idea. Not something that will be forced upon them by capitalism. How do you think we create like half of professions ever?

What in the hell is a “Caramel Ribbon Cursetard”

What do you mean women don’t like a FOSS privacy-oriented user experience? Don’t they like going through 500 pages of documentation when Gentoo breaks only to realize all along that the problem was fixed by turning the computer off and on again?

What do you mean men don’t like that either?? What kind of place is this?!

What the hell is “woke”? Isn’t that just normal?

Literally Texas

Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – “left” is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and “right” is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.

Also it’s hard to tell what you mean by “pure libs” but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of “free speech” – very to the right. They’re usually called “libertarians” or “ancaps” in the US.

If by “pure lib” you mean a principled American “liberal” then there’s not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America’s liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for “social liberals”.

Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).

An accurate-ish description may be “socialist” and “syndicalist” vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; “communist” and similar adjectives like “ararcho-communist” encompass 9 to 10; “anarchist” contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); “democratic socialist” is 5.5 to 7; “social democrat” is 4.5 to 5.5; the American “left” is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it’d be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or “extremists”. US “conservativism” (or “conservatism”, pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely “sounds kinda like fascism” to “fascism” at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they’re usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it’s military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They’re on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.

Assuming decimals are out of the question, let’s just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.

Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.

What’s fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it’s intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it’s not surprising at all, but it’s still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren’t Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.

If we take “left or right” to “how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism”, though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn’t be anywhere near communists in that regard either.

The brand name literally comes from the Russian name though (Смирнов Smirnov/Smirnoff).

The calorie used to be the base unit, until we released in the 19th century “wait, heat isn’t a gas” and threw out caloric theory, and made the joule. Now the calorie is defined as 4.184 joules.

of an approximation of a derivative of the Roman foot in metric*

The Roman foot was between approximately 0.96 and 1.1 international feet (most commonly about 0.97 ft, except in modern Belgium where it was 1.091 ft/13.1 in, the size of Nero Claudius Drusus’ foot). After that, the foot in Britain was based off the North German foot (~13.2 in), but in the late 13th century it became more like 12 in (so around the same as the modern foot). Later the English foot was between 11.7 and 12.01 in, and the US foot was based on the English foot until the 19th century when they made the US Customary Units and defined the foot as exactly 1200/3937 meters. The British made the British Imperial system and a bit later defined the foot as 1200/3937.0113 meters. They didn’t switch to metric because they saw “French Revolutionary units” (metric) as “atheistic”. Later, we advanced our understanding of physics, and the British adopted a foot of 304.8 mm in 1930, and the Americans followed them in 1933, based on the new “industrial inch” from the now-unused 1927 light wave definition of the meter (which used the International Prototype, made of a standard bar). The modern foot is defined as exactly 0.3048 meters, by international agreement in 1959 between some English-speaking countries, after the newer Kypton standard definition of the meter (which is also now not used).

Now it’s based on the modern meter definition (distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second, which is defined based on the uperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of a caesium-133 atom being 9192631770 Hz)

Shapiro is also very anti-Palestine and centrist so… nobody wants him if they can have Walz instead. Walz has accomplished far more positive things than Shapiro.

We need actual social democrats. The great things our nation has weren’t the things brought on by centrism, but by progressives like FDR. Tim Walz is just that kind of guy. Democrats need people who won’t dedicate their career to attempting bipartisanship or “reaching across the aisle” when the other side of the aisle is the alt-right, and they need someone who isn’t controlled by corporate money. Because that kind of refusal to fight back against the right is what got the US into the mess it’s in now. Tim Walz doesn’t sucker up to fascists, as opposed to centrist Democrats.

Suburbs with cookie-cutter houses where everything looks eerily identical are everywhere around here in the south – or at least my part of it. Mostly in newer developments. They’re so ugly, and I have to see them any time I’m on the road unless I’m in an urban area.

The worst part is the people who live in those places (mostly white flight descendants) are always the ones who complain about housing projects and get zoning reforms & mixed-use building plans shut down because efficient land/property use looks “ugly” to them, and they think it’s bad for property value or something. Like fuck off, you literally live in the neighborhood from The Lorax, your opinion on what acceptable housing is is worthless.

Why do they all look the same? American-style suburbs completely lack character.

It’s hard for Republicans to argue against… but I imagine that would make environmentalists and people who want universal healthcare pretty annoyed. I mean most of those people will probably go out and vote Harris either way

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, they’re making ads look like comments now???