Dalewyn

You started it first, my dude:

>This is Tobin.. but without the Paradigm.

>Now no one hates that furry bastard more than me (and I challenge you to try)

>I know my fate for trying.. how many will join me knowing that?

Note that the President's budget request is literally that: A request.

The power of the purse, insofar as legislating it, rests solely with the House of Representatives. They can listen to the request or completely ignore it or write up something in-between. The President's request has no weight, though it could be a useful indicator of the future.

Considering how out of touch techies generally are, I don't think it's an unreasonable stereotype/argument to make.

It's easy to see here too, not the least the infamous DropBox comment.

Honestly, I couldn't care less. It's one man shouting against another, it's pointless to try finding facts out of that.

But as a simple Pale Moon user, I can say you caused a big enough disruption to the project that even a user who doesn't really pay attention also noticed.

Now you're here again sidetracking the subject at hand with past dramallamas and seemingly getting your pantaloons moist at having stories besides your own also provided. No thanks.

All I can tell you is that when normal people don't understand windows, you definitely are not going to get them to understand windows in windows (which is what tabs effectively are).

I hate all these simplified designs we see in computers now just like most of the other weird people here, but those designs are not for a lack of good reasons.

>People understand browser tabs

My anecdata suggests they don't. I have tried teaching normal people how tabs work, but I might as well be speaking pig latin.

>What are normal people doing instead of using them?

They do things very simply.

Most people can not multi task, which means they only ever work with one window at a time. They get immediately confused with multiple windows. Likewise files and folders, most people can't grasp what they can't physically see so the very concept of files and folders inside a computer is pig latin and they just dump everything on their desktop which they can physically see.

A lot of tech nerd sensibilities are based upon very specific assumptions that just don't apply to most people, normal people. Anyone who wants to say anything about human interface design needs to first go out into the real world and see how real, normal people actually use computers.

>The fact that it doesn't take advantage of the multi-window nature of desktop systems.

That's because nobody uses more than one window. Remember, Discord was for gamers, not the tech zealot with a taskbar full of windows. Speaking from experience, I've had extremely low success trying to get normal people to understand windows. So a one-window-contains-all design is great for normal people. This design is also shared by Skype, LINE, and other mainstream chat software. Modern email clients also follow this design paradigm.

And if you still doubt me, remember: The two most popular operating systems in the world, iOS and Android, do not have windows.

Windows are a failed analogy as files-and-folders, normal people do not understand them and software for normal people rightfully don't use them.

Anyone who garners fame of any kind needs to have thick skin because he will inevitably get just as much hate as he does praise. It's probably something fundamental in human nature, or even life itself. I've seen this cycle play out time and time again everywhere across a countless variety of peoples and subject matters.

>Shrews are cute but MEAN.

There is a reason that unpleasant women are called shrews[1], for example as in The Taming of the Shrew[2].

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrew

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Taming_of_the_Shrew

It feels like everyone forgot Reddit's roots as far as its politics are concerned. Namely, the place was Libertarian Central on the internet until 2015 when it got astroturfed basically overnight to swing the other way. I was there to witness it and the whiplash was something fierce.

Reddit has been basically unusable for anything concerning politics since, and nowadays with politics leaking out into every damn sub possible it definitely has a problem.

For context, this is presumably the Tobin who caused significant tangible damage to the Pale Moon project on his way out.

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=28265

I sincerely thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point.

No, what you should takeaway is that misoverusing the term Nazi as an insult patently no longer works precisely because noone cares about being called a Nazi anymore due to its misoveruse.

In a different timeline, Trump being called a Nazi or any of the vicinity terms should have been an immediate termination of his campaign chances.

What actually happened is Trump ignored it (as he should) and the American people shrugged "OK" and went to vote for him with complete disregard.

Then Musk got called a Nazi at the inauguration, and the American people shrugged "OK" and went back to facepalming at just how much sheer waste the government has with complete disregard.

The moral you should take away is you should not invoke Godwin's Law. It's probably too late for "Nazi", "racism", "sexism", and a host of other insults the Left have thrown around to see what sticks (none have), but that doesn't mean future originally-valuable-terminology have to face the same fate.

Another moral is that insulting Americans probably doesn't actually work in general. "Deplorables", "Garbage", and others were turned around into rallying cries during the 2016 and 2024 campaigns, not unlike the original meaning behind the term "Yankee" which was originally an insult not unlike "Kraut" or "Jap" but is now one of the fondest nicknames of Americans.

As Trump said when an interviewer asked him about Ukraine: "I want people to stop dying." I think most Americans share that sentiment with regards to war, so no, trade wars don't count.

It's objective fact that Trump did not start a single war during his first term (he only inherited wars from his predecessors), his successor Biden immediately went back to starting wars. Americans will not tolerate declarations of war or otherwise military actions on Denmark/Greenland or Panama, we voted for him in large part because he is the first President in a long time who hates wars.

No. More. Wars. This is non-negotiable. Every single warmonger and the military industrial complex can go fuck themselves.

However, if we can get Greenland and the Panama Canal amicably through business/diplomacy then, as an American, why not?

>Dalewyn could have his family deported

If we're here illegally then fuck yeah Trump is doing the right thing; he's just enforcing the law as written. I thought we were all about rule of law?

Incidentally, our President today really likes his cheeseburgers.

I don't blame him.

I'm a Trump voter (2016, 2020, and 2024) so I obviously find all this a good thing, just for transparency.

That said, that is tangential and irrelevant to explaining how and why the pendulum swung back as hard as it did.

Trump won his first term in 2016 because Americans were fed up with the Bush+Obama status quo of endless wars and waste. Drain the swamp, fuck the establishment! As the sentiment of the day went; remember Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party? Biden winning 2020 was a sharp rebuke by the powers that be; how dare the people demand change and elect an outsider, how dare the people demand peace and effective government. Biden and Harris's 2024 campaigns likewise were based strictly and ultimately on continuing the status quo; Harris "had no policy" in large part because the "policy" was the status quo.

Trump winning again in 2024 with a historic campaign is a sharp rebuke to that, he is the people's retribution for being denied and refused for so long time and time again. For voters like me and us, NASA and the like having their funding slashed and denied is merely collateral damage for a greater and long-awaited cause.

>The people are largely unhappy with how things have been

This is an understatement to say the least, and the fact it's been denied and even refused by the powers that be until today is why the pendulum has swung as hard as it has.

Americans wanted change, and they finally got it with ferocious retribution because it's been held back for so long.

Much as it is the case with guns, why is the "problem" the tools or provider of the tools and not the user of the tools?

Look: You're arguing that the US goverment preventing insurers from raising rates is a bad thing. I completely agree.

You however worded the original query in such a way that I read it as the US government allowing insurers to raise rates is a bad thing.

That's why I was confused. All I advise is you choose your wording a bit more carefully in the future.

And? Congress can impeach the President if they feel the law isn't being executed. The law also extends nearly limitless benefit of doubt to the President when he is executing his Constitutional duties.

>It is a forced feature no one is really asking for.

Microsoft mandated TPM after gauging both user feedback and real world metrics and finding that TPM helped increase security by a significant margin. I am inclined to believe them.

Techbeards like most of the audience here have a passionate hatred for TPM whether righteously or otherwise. For everyone else in the real world, TPM is at best a security boon and at worst something you don't even know is there.

Windows Defender is so good that Microsoft Security Essentials was renowned as the worst anti-virus by anti-virus reviewers and providers.

You know something is awesome when the putrid market wails like a banshee.

Power of the purse rests with the House with consent from the Senate, but the execution of the purse is ultimately vested with the Executive.

Congress as the Legislative Branch has no authority to Execute.

>Breaking it down: if the US gov (or its subdivisions) believes the risk is "gouging" or "egregious" or "too expensive" and prohibits rate increases,

You worded the original query badly then.

I read it like follows:

What if the US gov:

* doesn't recognize the risk and

* allow insurers to raise rates

Hence my confusion: Why is it bad for the US government to let insurers raise rates?

EDIT: Copypasta fail. :V

So you're saying that everything would be fine(ish) if insurers are allowed to raise premiums. I agree.

The question you posed as a future potential problem is: "What if the US gov ... allow insurers to raise rates".

So again, color me confused. What is the problem with the government allowing insurance companies to raise premiums?

Read the question again: "what if the US gov doesn't recognize the risk and allow insurers to raise rates".

Breaking it down: "What if the US gov ... allow insurers to raise rates".

Now color me confused.

>This is NOT true for DOGE which has no legal right

DOGE and the Treasury Department are both part of the Executive Branch and derive powers from its head, aka the President.

This is essentially President Trump telling President Trump to hand President Trump the keys to the payment system so that President Trump can check WTF President Trump is spending money on.

>what if the US gov doesn't recognize the risk and allow insurers to raise rates.

I'm not sure I follow: Isn't the entire point of raising rates (I assume you mean raising insurance premiums) to compensate for higher risk?

Thinking about it, nearly everything about computing is fundamentally about how to translate between analog and digital.