Kabe

All the major outlets are reporting that the FBI confirms it’s him now. Very confusing, all round.

https://archive.is/20240714054831/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-identifies-thomas-matthew-crooks-subject-involved-trump-rally-shooting-2024-07-14/

https://archive.is/20240714055509/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/14/donald-trump-shooter-pennsylvania-rally/74396853007/

Shooter appears to be a white male, aged 20s or early 30s by the look of it. The t-shirt he was wearing is allegedly marked with branding for a firearms-related YouTube channel.

https://x.com/Shadi_Alkasim/status/1812315218258833590

Edit: Possible suspects are either Maxwell Yearick, previously arrested while demonstrating against Trump in Pittsburgh on a previous occasion, or a Thomas Matthew Crooks, according to the NY Post.

Hasn’t been officially ID’d yet though, so still speculation.

And every time, the taxpayer foots the bill. Until the funds start coming from police pensions, nothing is going to change.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. Fair point.

True.

On what basis doesn’t it work, though? I’m still not sure I understand what the problem is with your example.

You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.

Another way of looking at it is that we would in fact be widening the criteria of who would be considered “qualified”.

I would say the opposite, in fact.

Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to “improve” the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.

But like I said, that’s fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.

Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.

That’s why they would need to take more into account than simply weight. Surely multiple physical and hormonal factors could also be measured and an aggregate total value be applied to each athlete.

In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.

Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.

For a while I’ve been thinking that all sports should get rid of gendered male/female competitions and replace them with weight categories that take into account physiological characteristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.

Why wouldn’t this work?

I’ve never had to deal with Broadcom drivers or pinned the kernel, so I can’t tell you anything about that. The LTS kernel (currently 6.6.32-1) still updates regularly, albeit not nearly as often as the stock Arch kernel, so that means fewer updates that require a reboot.

Just install linux-lts and linux-lts-headers via pacman, and you’re good to go.

Interesting. Do you know if it works with an existing LUKS-encrypted installation?

I do not like the frequency of reboots necessitated by kernel upgrades. I know that I could mask it, but IME that eventually causes problems with packages than make .ko kernel modules; it’s just more things to fail, and it makes me really wish Linus would have just based Linux on MINIX.

Here’s a tip that you might not be aware of: Arch has an LTS kernel. It may seem counter intuitive to run Arch and not have the latest, bleeding edge kernel, but the upside is that you get a stabler, less breakage-prone system.

Same. Two years and counting.

I understand very well what liberalism and socialism are, thanks. Where we disagree is the definition of the “left” versus the “right”. Even in Europe, the old socialist left is becoming a thing of a bygone age, so of course the Overton window shifts to reflect the current political landscape.

Hang on, so you’re telling me you guys lump social liberals in with classical liberals and neoliberals? That’s definitely not common, but then I suppose if you’re a communist then it kinda makes sense.

Also, while I wouldn’t call Sanders a socialist either, he is not a centrist by any standard measure. I presume you don’t consider anyone a leftist if they don’t advocate for collective ownership and a centrally planned economy?

ML people often tend not to apply ‘liberal’ correctly either, so it goes both ways.

If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.

That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.

Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.

Oh, I agree - calling people Tankies/Liberals/Dronies, especially ad hominem, is reductive and generally unhelpful.