Yeah, wow, the comments weren't kidding. This'll probably be the best video I watch all month, at least, if not more. I would have said what she was trying to do was "impossible" (had I not seen the title and figured … well … she posted the video) and right about when I was thinking that she got me with:
> Hold on a second. That's a really bad excuse. And technology never got anywhere by saying I accept this and it is what it is.
You're presumably referencing Missouri v. Biden, to which the EFF did file an amicus[1]. In it, they note,
> Many platforms have potentially problematic “trusted flagger” programs in which certain
groups and individuals enjoy “some degree of priority in the processing of notices
> Of course, governmental participation in content moderation processes raises First Amendment issues not present with non-governmental inputs
With their overall opinion being something like "content moderation is normal, the government flagging content is also normal, and there are instances where the government's flagging of content moderation can be fine & not run afoul of 1A, but there are instances where it can, and we urge the court to think"
Note in this case, the platform was removing the content. The government was, in one respect, merely asking. (There were assertions that in other instances, such as public statements, the case was less so.) The court eventually ruled, and the ruling I saw from the 5th circuit seemed reasonable. (I think that was a preliminary injunction. AIUI, the case as a whole was never ruled on, because the Trump administration took over.)
You're overinflating your tires. A lower pressure will increase your speed and efficiency unless you're riding in a velodrome. Here's a video about this:
The video's result for both tires they tested was peak efficiency at 5 bar. They had a really coarse sampling of a whole bar, so that works out to a pressure of 65–80 psi.
The word has been corrupted beyond all meaning, primarily by Google. GMail has a thing they call "threads", which isn't a threaded view. A threaded view is at least a tree, that shows the actual who-replied-to-who of an email chain, which itself is (hopefully) a DAG.
GMail's "threads" are also heuristically grouped (which is good b/c, as another comment here notes, programmers are terrible at emitting the correct header), but also will just sometimes arbitrarily break emails which do share a common ancestor into separate threads.
As it is, Google has so ruined people's ability to communicate that it is not uncommon to see GMail users reply to the wrong email, b/c they're just replying to the last email in the set of emails sharing a common ancestor.
Now ever third app has "threads", like Slack, where "thread" is a flat, one layer-deep thing, and half the time nobody can tell who is responding to who anymore. (And seemingly nobody understand how to blockquote, either. Half my coworkers use inline code spans for blockquote, for whatever reason.)
I mean, you need WiFi, and that's definitely a roll of the die on flights. But the last flight I had had WiFi, and the gal who sat next to me was vibe coding something.
Meanwhile I was taking photos of the seat back infotainment system's map, which showed our ETA as being before we left. Sadly, we did not time travel.
> Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up?
I don't think so.
There's two routes, one improbable, one "hell freezes over" level.
The first route is impeachment & conviction. Our legislative branch is composed of two parts: the House and the Senate. The House would impeach him, and if impeached by the House, he would be tried by the Senate.
Currently, the GOP (Trump's party) has a majority of both the House & the Senate. It would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict an impeached president, and I do not see the Democrats winning the necessary seats in the next election (Nov 2026). We do not re-elect every seat at every election in the Senate (they are staggered). Assuming the vote is along party lines, i.e., Dems/Indepedents vote to convict, and GOP vote to acquit, of the 22 GOP seats up for election, all but 2 would need to flip in November in order for a party-lines vote to convict. 4 of the GOP-held seats were won with 65% or higher votes in their last election. I do not see enough seats flipping, nor enough politicians cross parties lines.
The other route, which social media is for whatever reason abuzz right now with, is the 25th Amendment. It permits the Vice President & the Cabinet members to issue a declaration that Trump is unable to discharge his duties. The President himself can end such a declaration, which in this case, I would expect he would immediately do; it would then have to be contested by VP/Cabinet, at which point it would go to Congress, and both House & Senate would need a 2/3rds vote to make it stick.
Impeachment & conviction seems the far easier route, only requiring a 2/3rd vote in the Senate. (The vote to impeach is, somewhat oddly to me, a simple majority vote.)
Upthread is discussing whether the Dems could flip the necessary seats to impeach and convict.
(And no, there is no way they will. It would take winning 20 out of the 22 seats, and losing none, assuming a party-line vote w/ independents siding with Dems. That won't happen. Also, the required vote in the Senate is two-thirds, not "60".)
> Hold on a second. That's a really bad excuse. And technology never got anywhere by saying I accept this and it is what it is.
reply