Solar is so much cheaper than Nuclear and the efficiency sway is so reasonable, it’s still the better option in non-ideal circumstances.

With initial cost of deployment being the biggest obstacle to nuclear, I’m not sure it will ever be the best green option for developing countries.

This is doubly true since it’s lifetime cost-per-kwh is much higher than that of solar.

One thing of note with the Steam Deck is that it CAN stream games from your PC, allowing you access to your whole library. You get access to fewer games in SteamOS (there’s still a ton). You can always look up what games are natively compatible with Steam Deck before you buy. The big ticket games are usually compatible nowadays (Starfield was markedly absent, but BG3 is there all-the-way).

Are you referring to Presh Talwalkar or someone else? How about his reference for historical use, Elizabeth Brown Davis? He also references a Slate article by Tara Haelle. I’ve heard Presh respond to people in the past over questions like this, and I’d love to hear his take on such a debunking. I have a lot of respect for him.

Your “debunk” link seems to debunk a clear rule-change in 1917. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ve never heard the variant where there was a clear change in 1917. Instead, it seems there was historical vagueness until the rules we now accept were slowly consolidated. Which actually makes sense.

The Distributive Law obviously applies, but I’m seeing references that would still assert that (6÷2) could at one time have been the portion multiplied with the (3).

And again, from logic I come from a place of avoiding ambiguity. When there is a controversiallly ambiguous form and an undeniablely unambiguous form, the undeniably unambiguous form is preferable.

Pretty much. I’m a progressive. Specifically, a socdem. I fully acknwledge that most people don’t want what I want. The fact that one side is giving me a seat at the table and offering me some progress and concessions means the world to me.

and when Trump eventually dies, I might be more sympathetic to a discussion about the progressive bloc holding out for a platform shift to the left

I won’t hold my breath, though. The Left is what… 13% of Democrats? If the Republicans fully died and the Democrats split, we Progressives would have to find allies to even win an election. Changing hearts takes time, and we’ve backpedaled a long way since the early 90’s.

Interesting. I haved lived in and out of Purple areas in a deep-Blue state, so perhaps the Republicans here are a little less insane than the typical ones. Not surprised, really, just didn’t realize

You mean more than “she’s a Democratic VP”? I wasn’t aware of that. She seemed the most conservative-friendly candidate to me in 2020 except Bloomberg. Guess I wasn’t aware of the particular hatred. I wonder why that could be. Surely not because she’s both a minority and a woman.

Are you really bragging about your support of fascism now? Oh look, found the block button.

She was specifically asked if she had a conversation with Bernie where he said a very specific sentence. Nobody knows where the media got that information, but she answered truthfully and moved on. Then Bernie denied it up and down and turned it political.

How do we know who told the truth? Because they hot-micced her at the end trying to talk to him, shocked at how he accused her of lying on national TV.

If one had anything bad to say about Warren it’s that she didn’t know how to fight dirty anymore than Mcain did in his campaign. I’d buy that.

Yes. Despite your Trump vote, we will elect Biden and preserve this country.

Kamala was a tough-on-crime prosecutor. She might even be able to rally some of the right to vote for her.

Not sure that’s saying something good about her, though.

In fairness, if 2020 had fallen differently Warren could’ve done it. If Bernie had backed her as a VP candidate instead of running, there was a solid shot they could’ve beaten Biden. She actually was leading the betting odds for “president” when the 2024 campaign began.

Warren had the opposite of what the Clintons had. She was a constantly progressive voter who could rally the moderate vote of a Harvard-trained law professor with a no-nonsense mindset.

She was also Obama-level known (unknown to common voters, but known to people who paid attention) so there wasn’t years of hate-news on her. The worst they could get was a true story about her having Native American ancestors that was intentionally blown out of proportion. That’s some Tan Suit shit there.

The moderate Democrats are probably the single largest voting bloc in the country. They don’t get to be “the problem” in a Democracy. They’re the base.

In 2020, I’d have said Warren. She was able to bring in almost every demographic, if she didn’t lose progressive votes to the infighting with Bernie.

In 2024, nobody has a better shot than Biden.

Just because he has convinced himself that he is the only one that can beat Trump doesn’t make it true.

An unpopular president typically does better than a popular candidate. That’s just how encumbancy works.

In fact I would argue that him running again is somewhat selfish.

Screw stats and precedent? Would you feel the same way if your favorite candidate ran and Trump crushed them by historic margins?

Why have we let ourselves get into the position we are in.

Because we’re a party of compromise, and the other side is a party fo extremism. Our compromise involved someone with a lot of bullet points in his favor for our older voters while still appealing to enough of our younger voters.

He did better than he promised at basically everything. I really wanted someone who would push the envelope to the Left, but he never promised that and a lot of Democratic voters didn’t want that anyway. He did recover us from COVID and dramatically improve the economy. He attempted some things that were more progressive than I expected of him, with various levels of success.

EDIT: he also compromised more with the Left than any president since Carter. Not much, but something

I mean…no. Her campaign was arguably the polar opposite of that to her detriment. She said she wanted to do something. Then she wrote up a detailed plan for it and published it, letting the other candidates find something in the details they didn’t like and tear it apart.

She’s a policy wonk who is a law professor first and a politician second.

I never saw anyone call her a secret Republican

There were a lot of “grassroots” youtube videos that came out and took lines of hers out of context. They would softball questions like “Warren is just as good as Bernie because they vote the same a lot, right? WRONG! Warren is a capitalist pretending to be progressive to steal your vote”. And those grassroot video efforts started to trace back to Sanders campaign leadership. Nobody ever quite confirmed if Bernie directly knew his campaign was doing it, but the rule is usually that the campaign’s action sare the candidate’s responsibility.

You say “better options” but a clear majority of Democrats thought Biden was the better option. And all the other candidates that anyone took seriously are in the same age range as them. Nobody younger knocked on the door with a platform really worth backing. Buttigieg had no Federal chops whatsoever, Harris was a freaking prosecutor.

Or if you’re just talking “better in general”, then you’re talking about the Progressives war. Bernie still hasn’t realized he’ll never win a Primary, and the way his campaign sabotaged and undercut Warren’s with necessary voting demographics was a killshot. Grassroot movements to call her a secret Republican. They should be ashamed of themselves.

He has implied the only reason he’s running for a second term is because he doesn’t want Trump to be president again.

We can never know, but if Trump weren’t running, he might not be either.

I agree completely. That’s a better use of time than passing a law that will have little to no positive effect on gun control and only hurts the poor.

Just because a bill says a certain phrase doesn’t mean we need to support it. A Gun Control law that says “White people get to take black people’s guns” is not a good law. A Gun Control law that says “Gun ownership is punishable by death” is not a good law.

A law that says “you have to buy this insurance prohibitive to poor people but not rich to people” is not a good law.

The only thing worse than “a lot more guns” is “a lot more guns in the hands of only certain classes of people who already have too many”