Schadrach

I have one of those ridge wallets (birthday present, decent wallet) and apparently they had a giveaway for a gold cyber truck. That would be the single most conspicuous vehicle on the road. Like, obnoxiously so. I feel bad for the winner.

That's easy - they'd come to Lemmy and become Lemmy mods to achieve the same thing.

I mean he did, but he both didn't know that at the time and it's not relevant to the goings on that night.

I'm just going to lead with this: he's an idiot, and in an ideal world he would have not been in Kenosha that night at all.

That said, if you followed the trial and the evidence presented, it very obviously fit the definition of self defense.

I wish them the best in their civil trial, but unless they're relying very hard on civil trials having a lower standard of evidence, are getting criminal trial evidence excluded, or are including new evidence not part of the criminal trial that makes a massive difference they probably won't win.

Shooting Rosenbaum will likely have the easiest time if they can pay an ME to give contradictory expert testimony to what came from the criminal trial. Because while it's on camera, you can't clearly see what went on with their hands and the gun in the video, and have to rely on the ME and testimony to fill in the gaps.

Getting wrongful death civil damages for someone shooting someone who knocked them to the ground and was coming at them with a blunt object will be harder, but not as hard as for Grosskreutz, unless he can bar his criminal trial testimony from the civil case or come up with an excuse why his answers don't mean what they appear to.

• “In [the United States of] America, any citizen can become president”.

So long as they are natural born, 35 years of age and can convince enough schmucks to vote for them, yeah. Of course, the demonstration of that being true is that we got Trump, a lifetime grifter with no political experience.

On the upside, he proves one of my go to sayings true: "There are two kinds of people I don't trust, salesmen and politicians. And politicians are just salesmen selling that they should be in charge."

Err, ending the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment. Proposing a constitutional amendment requires either 2/3 of state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress to set in motion and requires 3/4 of states to approve. This is why the ERA was never ratified - it only got 31 states.

Winning there matters currently. More than any other state. It's just everyone assumes the Dems are going to win it so it's less of a big deal because depending on your party it's either a given or a lost cause.

California is actually about middle of the pack for the House, currently. What skews the electoral college is that eveb the smallest states still get two Senators and a representative, and thus 3 electors.

The states that are least represented in the House tend to be ones that have 1 or 2 Reps and are very close to getting one more. Like Delaware, Idaho or WV. All of which are over 895k people per Rep. Most states are somewhere in the 700s.

No, it would replace it with a majority FPTP country wide system. Californians are a minority of the country. They do not get sole control, nor would they under a popular vote system.

Unless this also dramatically changes voting patterns nationwaide it's essentially the same thing. Every time in recent history the electoral college and popular vote have yielded different results, the difference was smaller than the margin in California.

As far as wanting to maintain the current electoral system, both parties are the same and they are the same in this one particular thing because they both benefit from it and any move away from it upsets the status quo that keeps the money and power flowing to them.

The only move either party wants to make away from the current electoral system is if they could find a way to reduce it to a single party system and that party was theirs.

They aren't the same in virtually any other way, to the point of being as extremely and overly opposed on as many other things as possible, in part because presenting everything as a dichotomy of extremes reinforces that system.

I can top it - my first desktop PC was an Epson. Come to think of it, my first printer was an Epson dot matrix. Loud as fuck but it was a good little workhorse.

They are. They just aren't the only one.

With the introduction of protected mode it became possible for programs to run in isolated memory spaces where they are unable to impact other programs running on the same CPU. These programs were said to be running “in a jail” that limited their access to the rest of the computer. A software exploit that allowed a program running inside the “jail” to gain root access / run code outside of protected mode was a “jailbreak”.

I still miss the narrow window in which you could make use of paging without technically being in protected mode. Basically there was like one revision of the 386 where you could set the paging bit but not protected mode and remain in real mode but with access to paging meaning you got access to paging without the additional processor overhead of protected mode. Not terribly useful since it was removed in short order, but neat to know about. Kinda like how there were a few instructions that had multiple opcodes and there was one commercially distributed assembler that used the alternative opcodes as a way to identify code assembled by it. Or POP CS - easily the most useless 80086 instruction, so useless that the opcode for it got repurposed in the next x86 processor.