notabot

This is way. Democrat voters want change, but they're not speaking to the system in a language it understands. The party changes not from the top down, but from the bottom up. That only happens when people with different views stand for, and win, lower level positions. Every voice changed lower down on the totem pole changes the presure on the people making decisions further up. Ultimately enough movement lower down means the top eschalons are pushed out and replaced too.

Whether it's possible to find enough candidates to start filling the party, I don't know, but just focusing on the primaries (or lack thereof) for the top job is missing the wood for the trees.

Why allow depreciation? You wouldn't have bought it with the reduced functionality, and it's going to cost you time and effort to remove it and replace it with something else. Inflation will reduce the value more than enough.

Currently Vexed Soul - having to deal with customers, especially ones like that! :)

It's a fairly nebulous number, it's going to be different for each individual, and Dunbar was only positing an approximate relationship between brain size and group size. Even if humans can manage 150 or more relationships, it makes sense to keep your group smaller than that to allow for external relationships too.

That makes sense, it keeps communities small enough to be cohesive but large enough to function, and spreads the groups to mitigate risks.

Well, a number of them in Montana flipped to block an anti-trans bill: https://thepulp.org/montana-republicans-flip-to-defeat-anti-trans-bills/ (just a semi-random link to the story, there are many other sources). Some of them can be persuaded to change their minds. Perhaps not many, or by much, but it is possible.

Nothing? At least, so long as he's bankrolling his pet they will look the other way.

Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist, found a relationship between primate brain size and average social group size, and extrapolated that to humans, giving a comfortable group size of around 150 people, known as Dunbar's number. If you work on the principal that that would be about the average size of a tribe in an unstressed hunter society, it would seem quite pkausible that a hunting group would be around 50 people. It's large enough to take down pretty much anything you'd want to hunt, and small enough to coordinate efficiently.

I suspect that is some sort of sunk cost falacy combined with a narative that says only he can get the bad things to stop; once it get's to the point that your cities are being destroyed, you probably wont, and certainly wont have the opportunity to, change leader. It's critical that as many minds as possible are changed before getting to that stage.

I normally just use X forwarding over ssh. For simple, X native, apps it usually works nicely, but if you're using something that draws its own UI (electron apps, browsers and the like often do) it'll be extremely painful or just fail.

I believe there is, or was, a way to run a vnc client rootless, but I think you needed to configure the server in a specific way too. It's been a long time since I tried though so things will have changed.

I think this has got to be one of my all time favourite C&H strips, it gets a chuckle every time I see it. The last two frames are perfect, and I know I've felt the same sentiment as Calvin enough times to know better.

My understanding is that it's printed on such flimsy paper as a sort of identity loss protection. If you lose it somewhere it'll degrade quickly to the point it's unusable, hopefully before someone else tries to use it. The downside is, of course, that if you don't protect it with supreme care, it will also degrade to the point it's unusable.