I thought I’d share with you that someone really liked your post and shared it on a sublemmy I moderate: https://lemmy.world/post/15449701

I also like your post. I realize you’re in a shitposting topic so maybe everyone else is just… well… shitposting. But its still good to see experienced posts like yours.

I’ve begun to pay for Kagi.com

I wouldn’t say that it “blows my mind” or anything, but simply that it seems to work as expected (which is more than what I can say for Google). There’s also a “Fediverse” button on Kagi.com, so it can search lemmy.world (and more??).

Only after the Delaware court forced him to.

Elon is a jackass who runs over all normal senses of decency while repeatedly getting away with it. And he will continue to do so as long as his legion of asshole internet followers continue to worship him on a wide scale, giving him large benefits in our cultural zeitgeist.

I am happy that people are finally understanding how much of an asshole Elon is today. But he’s been pulling this shit since the dawn of Tesla, as the Tesla takeover court cases proved in the 00s.

They didn’t sell it to Elon.

Elon sued them and took Tesla over in court. https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-founder-twitter-land-of-the-giants.

Elon beat them in the court of law, business tactics, and expertly took over the company. What, you think Elon paid for this? He’s smarter than that.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World / Michael Cera as the titular character.

Yes, Michael Cera is great at portraying awkwardness. But… I don’t think Michael Cera’s awkwardness was the right kind of awkwardness that Scott Pilgrim had. But maybe that’s just me.

Human hermits?

Though there aren’t many female heroes in history, the few that existed made huge marks.

St. Olga of Kyiv famously slaughtered (!!!) her enemies (the Drevlians) to protect Kyiv and avenge her husband. She then converted to Catholicism and spread the message to the Slavs. And her lineage then founded Moscow. She’s considered the reason why Catholicism spread to the East, despite a patriarchy at her time.

But perhaps bloody stories of revenge and the spreading of the good word (a trope of the Middle Ages I know, but she’s known for it), is a bit “Just a man with different bits”. Still, she was smart, she was cunning, she was ruthless, she conquered, she ruled.

Perhaps a more traditional “Feminine Strength” is St. Joan of Arc, who raised an army and marched with them, though she never really won battle accolades or ruthless terror like St. Olga. St. Joan of Arc comes from humble beginnings and rises to become a leader of a movement in the 100 years war. Despite being tried for being a witch (erm, talking to the Devil? Something like that), she never gave up on her values and is widely recognized as a key figure in her time.

I think Joan of Arc is closer to what the English-speaking world would consider feminine strength. St. Joan of Arc never betrayed anyone, and largely served as an inspiring figure. (As opposed to the cunning St. Olga who has multiple atrocities in her name). She stood her ground as she was tried, and was burned at the stake at the young age of 19. Still, despite her young age, she was a key leader (though not a ruler), who inspired many to fight for France.

In any case, Joan of Arc was confident. She benefited from prophesies that a maiden would come to save France in the hundred years war, and she stepped up to be that role. She traveled across the country raising and inspiring soldiers. She marched into battle (though I don’t believe she was ever seen as a warrior or tactician type given her age and small stature), but this grossly improved the morale of the soldiers around her. Women (or really, young girls) like her weren’t supposed to be on the front lines like she was. But just arriving to dangerous positions and being confident, and telling everyone that they’re cause is righteous and they’re doing the right thing is hugely important.

Being around to witness the horrors of war, to tell people that things are alright and they’re fighting for the right things. Its… important. People need to know that.

Note that Joan was also on trial for wearing men’s clothes. Suggesting that she’s an early feminist who did fight for equality centuries earlier than other feminists. Truly ahead of her time.

It’s len(str) in Python. Not str.length.

Is it wrong that I’m stuck trying to figure out what language this is?

Trying to figure out what string.length and print(var) exist in a single language… Not Java, not C# (I’m pretty sure its .Length, not length), certainly not C, C++ or Python, Pascal, Schme or Haskell or Javascript or PHP.

In Qanons case, Q gave them the info and was leaking it.

Allegedly anyway. It’s not very hard to say you have an inside man.

After the kneeling / Black Lives Matters thing just a few years ago??

Nah man, racial politics have penetrated into Football. The adults want it to go away because its mildly embarrassing to the league. But there’s a large group of racists who want to stir up anti-Black shit here.

My headlines I’m seeing “stick” are complaints about Usher’s halftime show and Andra Day singing Lift Every Voice and Sing.

But yeah, I see Taylor Swift stuff if I specifically search for it. But the anti-Black Artist thing seems to be the thing sticking. I dunno, lets see what happens tomorrow morning.

The rednecks too busy getting triggered by Black Artists performing songs today, apparently… did anyone actually get pissed at Taylor Swift today?

Lets reverse it.

Why must the circumference and diameter of a circle be related in such a way by two integers precisely?

IE: Why are you so confident in “proving” that these two values are related to integers? Especially if you’re a modern mathematician who knows about irrational numbers (aka: can never be represented by a ratio of two integers) or imaginary numbers (which truly appear in electricity: phasors and the like. Just because the name is “imaginary” doesn’t mean that they’re not real!!!)

I’m not denying that we got rid of Saddam. What I’m saying is that the move isn’t as self-serving as many critics try to force. The earlier post is trying to argue that we’ve somehow stolen the resources of Iraq, but no such thing has happened.

Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.

And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.

The Iraqi Constitution says that Iraq is in charge of the oil, and what US imported we paid a fair price for.

And most of Iraq’s exports is oil. So how is this imperialism? Iraq keeps it’s most precious resource and we pay a fair price for it despite militarily enforcing the area. In fact, there is a lot of criticism from the Republican base that we didn’t take advantage of the Iraqis.

Are you saying that we SHOULD have take the oil??

But in this case, its Jordan who wants to have its border defended from ISIS, and the USA also wants to kill ISIS, so why not make a deal between us where we can have a military base that does both?

Win-win for both parties. This is more like the CEO wanting to give a pay-raise to the employee, and the employee accepting it. Both sides are happy.

Just because there’s a power imbalance doesn’t mean that there’s any ill-will or problem. US-Jordan relations are very close, and have been great for decades.

Its not US troops who’d destroy Jordan though. Its all their neighbors (ISIS, Syria, and Iranian Militia).

That’s my point. US Troops are the source of stability here. A good thing for everyone. Meanwhile, actual Imperials were like… I dunno… how the Soviet Union treated the Polish.

as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.

1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)

The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.

Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.

Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?