Oh, my bad then. Yes: you were right.
Oh OK. Murdering rich people might effect social change. Though I'm skeptical because not a lot of people actually do it, which is an important component of that change.
I think you still end up coming around in a circle: in your fantasy of mob-justice, what prevents the wealthy from ending up being the ones who control it? (Like Vlad the Impaler!)
Surely the problem with "woke" is that right-wing media grabbed it as a boogeyman and plastered it everywhere, right? I mean, what does it even mean to say "[woke] tried to solve ... issues". It's a word. It doesn't have any agency.
The only definition I've ever heard (because right-wingers don't attempt to define it) is "awareness of systemic discrimination (particularly by the USA towards black americans)". If a handful of people talking about how the USA has some bad history and what that means for the country today... The same people getting their feelings hurt over "woke" are just going to get them hurt over some other word that they make up. Like if nobody had ever heard of "woke" they'd be crying about "diversity" (oh wait they are) or "justice" or "peace" or literally anything because words don't have meaning to that crowd beyond something to get offended over.
The question itself self-answers with a little bit of thought: reading the typo as-is doesn't make sense and there's only one obvious correction, which SalmiakDragon provided. So I read their question as more conversation/chattiness rather than genuine confusion. I was replying in kind with an attempt to riff off of my typo: what if the typo was actually intended? Could we find any meaning to the phrase "attach women"? No, not really.
Hatred Enterprise Linux being marketed to the US gov
"Why would anyone in Europe care?"
I think the point of it would be to signal to Trump that Europe is his vassal. Trump says it's sad that this guy is dead, therefore Europe is sad. Doesn't really matter who it is or what's up. You're just following the pledge of fealty.
So, I think it's good that the EU decided they're sovereign for now. This sort of thing is always an ongoing project.
To be fair: it's all the Republicans casting the deciding vote. She doesn't have any special powers that makes her vote count more than the rest. The difference is that she's occasionally not-shitty and so she gets a lot of attention as a maybe.
Like: Rick Scott also cast these deciding votes, but everyone already expected that he'd be a shit so he doesn't get any flak for it.
I think the US will be fine as long as we don't repeatedly elect some kind of cabal of pedophile authoritarians.
There's a lot of externalizing of costs going on. The trucks are idling because the drivers are operating at the slimmest possible margin under the assumption that idling doesn't cost anything.
What we actually would want to get to is that idling does have a cost (environmental, health, pleasantness of the area, etc). And that cost ought to be passed up the chain so that the various goods being shipped are more expensive.
But without a more centrally-managed economy, the implementation is to put all the pressure on the truck drivers and leave them responsible for passing that pressure to the next step up the chain. It doesn't work out very well in practice because the drivers need to make a bunch of capital expenses for something like adding a cab AC and adding a batter-powered lift, but they've been operating at low margins so they're not in a position to do it.
Though, do be careful because there are abusive same-sex relationships and sometimes it's even harder to get away because the people around you are telling you "but women can't be abusers!"
As a programmer, DST creates tons of bugs for anything using time and is annoying. But whatever, I guess I get paid either way.
As a parent, DST is miserable. It's miserable as an adult, also, but multiplied misery when you have to get up early to ruin your kid's sleep. And then that night they're not ready to suddenly go to sleep an hour early so you lose an extra hour...
I hope Poland succeeds.
Yes, you are correct that the numbers for the Green Party aren't usually enough to make a difference in any election. I'm just frustrated that they're not even providing a legitimate alternative to the Democratic Party.
How I'd want the Greens to work:
How the Greens actually work: