pjwestin

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Are you trying to meet a 60-year-old divorced guy?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago

Or how they delayed announcing a winner in Iowa, rigged at least one delegate coin flip, and eventually anointed Buttigieg the winner even though Bernie received more votes.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 day ago (3 children)

What a weird coincidence that, just as AOC and Bernie begin a wildly successful tour of the country, we start hearing about the Biden's wanting to help lead the party or Kamala being the the top choice for 2028.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Hey champ, here's a tip; instead of writing, "lemme rephrase," halfway through your comment, you can just delete the portion that's poorly phrased! That way, instead of having to read (what I'll generously call) a paragraph of word salad, people can start at the part that's (again, generously) coherent! Also, you might want to look up, "what does a hyphen do," or, "when to use commas vs. periods," because you write like an AI that was trained exclusively by ESL students and stroke victims.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Do me a favor and search, "FDR New Deal."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Most of the kids I know who have this attitude would also call IT if they accidentally opened the Command Prompt or BIOS.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Guess I needed to add an /s to that one.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

...OK, that still would have a far-left opinion in American politics. It's not like the country was divided between socialists and communists back then. Hell, it took the Great Depression just to get the moderate socialist reforms of the New Deal passed, and even then, its opponents thought it was communism.

Like, I don't know what to tell you. I understand your point; you think anything that doesn’t involve the abolition of private property isn't left-wing. But even pre-Cold War, even pre-McCarthyism, even during the Coal Wars, that position would be the far-left of American politics. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but when I, or the author of the article, or most Americans, are talking about, "the left," we're definitely not working from your definition.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good thing we've got so many international allies and are known for being such a stable, reliable economic partner. Now, if you'll excuse me, I haven't read the news in two months and I need to catch up on current events.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean, fair enough, but there's no point in America history where abolishing private ownership wouldn't be considered far-left. I understand that compared to international standards or across the broader spectrum of political theory, the American left has never been particularly left-wing. When I say the Democrats are slightly center-left or center-right, I'm comparing them to themselves 30 to 40 years ago. Since 1980, they've slowly compromised their principles to the point where they can't be considered, "left," by any modern political metric.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago

To be fair, the roadrunner it was following somehow successfully ran into the painting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Well, there's a reason I said, "generously," slightly left-of-center. It also depends on the Democrat. There's enough of them that care about labor to get the PRO Act through the house, but not the Senate. I don't think it would be unfair to call someone like Gary Peters center-left, given his strong pro-union track record, but someone like Schumer or Pelosi, who are squarely on the side of Wall Street and big tech respectively, are just conservatives masquerading as left-leaning centrists.

17
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

So, I have an old desktop (Lenovo Erazer X310) that has been gathering dust for a while now. It runs Windows 10, and since I know support will be ending this year, I've decided to switch Linux and see if I can get some more use out of it. After doing a bit of research, I think that, as a complete noob, Mint is the right choice for me. After watching a few tutorials, I think I have a good understanding of how to install and set up Linux, but I have a couple of questions before I take the plunge. If anyone has a few minutes to answer them, I'd be very grateful.

  1. I think Cinnamon is the version of Mint I should start with, but I've read that it might be better to go with MATE or Xfce for older machines. My Desktop is almost 11 years old now, but based on what I've read, I think it should still be able to comfortably run Cinnamon; 8 GB RAM, AMD A8-7600 Radeon r7 processor (4 cores, 3.1 GHz), and I'm 90% sure it has an SSHD. Is that good enough for Cinnamon?

  2. Would those specs be good enough if I wanted to dual boot? I actually don't hate Windows 10 (it's certainly better than 11), and I'd like to keep it as an option for at least for the last few months it has support. I just reset Windows 10 and wiped all my files, and it's now running fairly quickly. Do you think it's capable of dual booting?

  3. This may be a dumb question, but I can't actually find the answer anywhere; if I decide that I want to remove Windows 10 later, how difficult will that be? It's seems pretty easy to just delete it when I set up Linux, but will it be a hassle to remove once I've got Mint up and running?

Those are my big questions. I think I have a pretty good understand of how to install Linux from the BIOS, but I haven't actually installed an operating system since Windows 98 (and my dad helped me with that), so if anyone has any additional tips they think I should know I would welcome them. Thanks!

Edit: Thanks for the replies! It sounds like I should be able to run Cinnamon with no problem, but I'll probably test Cinnamon and MATE from a USB first and see which I like better. I really appreciate the advice!

125
"Winner" (lemmy.world)
 
 

Seriously though, don't do violence.

1
Seems Legit (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Shazam's first page.

 
1
Ghosted (lemmy.world)
 
 
 
222
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Tankie's original use was for British communists who supported Soviet military expansion. In the modern sense, it is used to describe communists who are authoritarian-apologists. For example, a communist who romanticizes the Soviet Union or makes excuses for the Uyghur genocide is a tankie. I've also seen it stretched to include militant anti-capitalists, or more commonly, "militant," anti-capitalists who call for violent resistance to capitalism from the safety of a keyboard.

Democratic-Socialists are not tankies. Socialists are not tankies. I don't even think most communists qualify as tankies. Criticizing Democrats does not make you a tankie. Condemning Israel's human rights violations does not make you a tankie. Voting third party doesn't make you a tankie. I see this term used here every day, but never correctly.

view more: next ›