There are many non-local scenarios that can cause CSS to not load. The host providing the CSS could be down, for example. The CSS could be malformed or broken in some way, for another.

It’s likely a local problem, but it is not always a local problem.

Why do you capitalize seemingly random words? Is this a translation artifact or something?

A bidet gets its water straight from the tap, not from the toilet bowl. His is the same water that you wash your hands in.

I think you are coupling a centralized voting system with one that gives equal access, and I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Being a centralized system makes it consistent, but not necessarily fair.

An independent body could be easier to undermine (single point of attack), and be just as likely, if not more likely, to reduce voting access across the country all at once. I think we’d have corruption either way. The inefficiency of the decentralized system could be slowing it down.

I think you are looking at the system with hindsight and assuming that because the current system is suffering problems, that a different system wouldn’t suffer those same problems. I don’t think you can justify that conclusion

I think the states handling election in theory makes sense. It’s a decentralized system that is harder to undermine. An independent body may bring consistency, but I don’t think that helps at all in combatting Trump’s tampering.

Also, many states are using paper ballots and always have been.

Ah, that’s a good workaround.

Does that work pre-os boot? I had to boot my Linux Mac into safe mode, and the way to do that is to press the escape key during boot. I had to plug in an external keyboard to do it.

I have a couple touch bar macs, and the touch bar is fine.

However, I installed Ubuntu on one of my touch bar macs. The keyboard has no physical escape key; that would be on the touch bar. So, my Ubuntu touch bar Mac now has no escape key, which is a bit problematic, so having a fix for that would be cool.

It is not a big deal for me, since I’m just using it as a server, but it could be a deal breaker for using a touch bar Mac with Linux as a PC.

The person you are replying to is talking about pink sky being built on bluesky, and you equate that to Lemmy being based on Reddit. One is a hard technical dependency, and the other is a conceptual inspiration.

You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy, and I think you know that. You even try to sneak it in by switching to a different but similar word (built->based) with a different meaning, then you switched back again to “built” while using the term in the same way you used “based”, then you start using other phrasing to obscure it even more. You are gaslighting with word games to try and get people to not notice your fallacy. It’s super dishonest.

I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two. You are moving the goal posts.

I’ll make it simple for you by reframing my position, as a simple syllogism so maybe you’ll stay on topic:

Premise one: Kamala’s policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump’s.

You’ve asserted without evidence that Kamala’s policy is the same as Trump’s. That is factually false. They may be close, but they are not the same. Even if Kamala lied about her policy and continued Biden’s policy of providing unconditional resourcing, it is still better than Trump’s policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You’ve also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala’s policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.

Whether or not you can “support this” is irrelevant. Whether or not it “crosses a line” is irrelevant. Voting is not endorsement, nor is it support of a candidate or all their positions. It is one of your few ways to peacefully influence the direction of the country. You want a viable party that is anti-genocide? Me too. That option didn’t exist. Go run for office. Go make that party. In the meantime, stop rolling over for the fascists and letting them get their way.

Ah, you aren’t even American and you are arguing American politics. No wonder you are full of shit. You don’t have to face the consequences of a Trump presidency directly. No wonder you are so fucking privileged.

Stop trying to influence American politics and stick to your own. I’m done with you, there’s no point to this.

What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.

If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I’ll choose the better world every time. I won’t sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it’s despicable that you did.

Quite impressive how you can read minds and see the future.

None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.

I’ll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:

Premise one: Kamala’s policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump’s.

You’ve asserted without evidence that Kamala’s stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden’s established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump’s policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You’ve also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala’s policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.

You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.

Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn’t running for President.

Kamala’s position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump’s position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.

By voting 3rd party, you’ve taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?

On top of this, this was Kamala’s weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you’re willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.

Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?

Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn’t make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.

So we might as well just let Trump win and kill the Palestinians faster. What a champion of Palestine you are.

So might as well let the worst one win then? If there’s going to be a genocide, might as well be a good one? Gross.

Kamala was not insistent that Israel have free reign like Trump was. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. In the context of these two candidates, they are clearly not the same.

Voting third party is not a “fuck you” to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.

A third party vote is a waste of a vote and no different from abstaining. A third party vote is simply shrugging in the face a fascism. Trump loves it, because it opened the way to his election.

They were not equally pro genocide. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. These are not the same, one is clearly better.

Voting is not an endorsement. We had the choice between a candidate that was bad for Palestine, and a candidate that was even worse for Palestine.

It’s a pretty simple argument that someone who cares about Palestine should vote for the less bad candidate.