You can’t call it free market capitalism when you’re literally restricting who can and can not import rice and then getting upset at yourself for the self-inflicted starvation. This isn’t capitalism, it’s the very definition of Protectionism, and yes: closed-matket protectionists are failing everywhere, from Brexiteers to MAGA morons, to closed-market rice farmers.

This isn’t to say that unfettered Capitalism is the answer, or that all protectionist policies are bad. Any policy taken to the extreme is guilty of the real sin: not learning from the strengths and weaknesses of the systems they rail against and using them to build a more robust and functional middle ground.

There are a lot of comments here about which launchers are “close enough” to the Nova feature set, but very few people are talking about specific features and the alternatives that support them. I really just use two, and everything else is a cherry on top that I can do without if push comes to shove.

1. Icons that open a folder if you swipe them, but launch the first app in the folder if you tap them. That way my apps all pull double-duty as both the one-tap app AND the list of alternatives I use less often.
2. Google Now integration that swipes in from the left.

Action Launcher used to be my go-to, and it’s still the best implementation of #1 because of the little indicators it adds to let you know if something is a “cover” (folder when you swipe) or “shutter” (widget when you swipe). Sadly it’s gotten rather bloated over the years and spends more time force-closing from one glitch or another than it does actually running properly. Nova was my backup because it added “covers” a few years ago and I remembered enjoying the app about a decade ago. Now what?

Yes, which is why turning a hospital or refugee camp into a command post is a war crime. But it also means that attacking a hospital or refugee camp, whether they’re being used as shields for military targets or not, should also not be done lightly. Iron-clad case made beforehand that it is a military target, rigorous scrutiny of the claim evaluated by an independent body after the fact, and the military action against the target has to prioritize the civilians as much as possible. They’re people. Men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the conflict and are simply caught in the crossfire. One side showing a disregard for the life of innocents does not justify the other side doubling down on the same.

Holy whataboutism, Batman, no one is arguing that Hamas is in the right here. What are you even trying to say with this? “Hamas ‘fucks civilians’ which makes them evil… so Israel might as well join in and ‘fuck civilians’ too”?

Can’t we all just agree that no one should be “fucking civilians” for any reason, because you know, they’re civilians?

How would you define “independent”? Typically, it refers to whether or not the organization has direct ties to an outside source that it allows to alter the ethical standards of fairness or impartiality. No news outlet is truly unbiased, and The NYT might be center-left, but they still do a damn good job at reporting facts, issuing corrections when they get things wrong, and maintaining reliable credibility for the majority of topics over the years. They’ve got an editorial section, and that part of the paper is biased (which is kind of the whole point of editorials), but it’s also clearly labeled as editorial and not news. They are not state sponsored, they do not rewrite facts in exchange for payment, and they generally strive for truth. Might not nail it every time (because no one can), but they largely fess up when they make a mistake. That’s the definition of independent.

For reference, this is the Media Bias Fact Check summary:

Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.

And when defining Center-Left bias:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.

I’m with you on their lack of criticality when it comes to the NYPD. I wish that reporting was better as well. I’m also with you on wanting to see them take more chances with their reporting rather than stay within the narrow realm of beltway politics. But the latter has nothing to do with independence, and you’re going to need specific examples and critiques if you want to build your case around the former. It’s a discussion I’d honestly welcome. But “establishment vs anti-establishment” and “independence” are two wildly different discussions.

… which is not to say that it’s free or even affordable (despite the name), or that residents in every state have equal access, or that the government is providing the plan. The ACA is a subsidy that slightly reduces the cost of private insurance, provided that you’re poor enough to qualify and that your state chooses to accept the federal government’s help beyond a certain threshold.

I don’t think he’s encouraging Republicans to reproduce so much as he’s trying to justify forcing all the other women to give birth against their will. All of those children of rape and incest, those kids whose parents aren’t emotionally or financially equipped to raise them, those kids whose high-risk births might cause their moms to die in labor, those kids who have congenital heart defects, or who will be DOA when they’re born. Moms aren’t allowed to speak for those fetuses, or have a say over their own health and safety. Because every baby that Republicans can force to be born is another new taxpayer to fill our coffers. Obviously.

I swear half the users here are running NixOS these days (with the other half on Arch). Redditors like Linux, but Lemmings take it to an whole new level.

When?

Congress ran up a dinner tab, ate the food, drank the drinks, and then Kevin Karen refused to pay the server when his bill was due. I get being worried about what next year’s dinner might cost, but don’t scream at the hostess and refuse to pay for what was already eaten. The staff needs that cash Congress owes them to buy groceries and pay the bank, or real people are going to starve and the bank is going to jack up everyone’s rates permanently since Karen keeps dining here and pulling this bullshit.

The “working with Democrats” that you’re talking about is when the manager was forced to give Karen a meal voucher in exchange for his signed promise to come in the next morning with a check. But instead of paying his bill - the one he asked to negotiate even though he already ate the food - the twerp went back on his own promise again and pitched another fit in the morning. Again, the staff almost didn’t get paid and again the restaurant’s creditors almost raised the country’s rent, until Karen threw a $20 bill on the table and said “I’ll be back later”.

At which point his friends in the GOP tossed him to the curb not because he was being an ass, but because they actually wanted the country to default, food stamps to stop, and the whole system they represent to grind to a halt.

McKaren didn’t “work with Democrats,” he refused to pay the country’s bills (which the House had already signed into law and spent), held that payment hostage to force concessions, and then refused to honor his own deal. The debt limit still hasn’t been raised, and you think the guy with a track record two times over of skipping out on his own tab and breaking his own deals is the one to trust?

Just because Jordan is worse doesn’t mean McCarthy is trustworthy. It sure as hell doesn’t mean he “can be worked with when push comes to shove.” McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus were the ones doing the shoving.

This might be the best choice

There are lots of choices that could be made. Off the top of my head, there’s the choice to form a consensus government of the middle half so that the essential functions of government are taken care of, like paying for services they’ve already signed into law, approving military leadership appointments for the hundreds of vacancies in our armed forces, and ensuring that pregnant women and disabled veterans on food stamps don’t starve when the “Freedom Caucus” tries to intentionally shut down the government (again) even though the GOP already agreed to spending levels. Because remember, the Senate and White House are both controlled by Democrats, so the only way they can sign something into law is with a consensus involving the other side, and there’s actual work to be done.

Your premise that a divided GOP is required to rely on themselves alone is something they did to themselves by choice over and over again.

I don’t know that I’d go that far when characterizing his record.

Yes, he ultimately ended up certifying the election, but he also signed the Texas v Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to help throw out millions of votes (despite the suit lacking any sort of standing, and being “constitutionally, legally[,] and factually wrong about Georgia” in the words of Georgia’s AG, which rings pretty true when you read the brief). When he did finally vote to certify, the GOP letter he signed very clearly implies things would have gone differently if he had been allowed to vote for the slate of obvious fraudsters that were stopped before they made it to Congress. There was a long line of fundamental safeguards that prevented the illegal toppling of the government, every one of which was stressed to its breaking point (mostly with Austin Scott’s help), and any of which could have tipped the scales, but Scott wasn’t exactly on the side pushing for Democracy. That said, you’re right. At least he did better than Jordan, I guess?

For the record, Scott’s other political stances are:

• Life begins at conception so abortion at any stage for any reason is murder
• Pro death penalty
• Anti gun control
• Anti same-sex marriage, let alone the raft of other LGBT issues

So… several decades and a few million voters removed from where the actual American population stands, and farther to the right than even mainstream fiscal conservatives, but that’s par for the course these days.

Ideally this would be baked into ActivityPub, true, as would a distinction between porn, gore, and other sensitive topics for easy filtering by flair. But in the meantime, I’m relatively satisfied with the (admittedly hacked together) approach we have now. We already spend a couple minutes playing around with the look and feel of any new client we download, and filters are just part of that “settling in” process. If we had a bunch of them to set, it’d be one thing. But porn filtering really is just a matter of tagging one or two instances to cover 99% of the content out there. And the best part is that you’re not even digging through the settings, you’re tapping 3 buttons (max) on posts if you see them at all. As far as inconveniences go when switching apps, that one’s pretty minor.

As for being “locked in” and beholden to a particular client, are you really locked in if all of them let you do the same things (albeit in their own ways)?

Many of the Android apps let you filter instances, as well as individual communities or users. Most instances don’t host porn because of the legal headache, so blocking the only two that specialize in it should (mostly) do the trick: lemmynsfw and pornlemmy. On Sync for Lemmy, tap the overflow button on an offending post > filter > filter instance