[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 6 points 20 hours ago

It's the same outcome either way. You don't have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn't exist anymore! What changes?

People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you'll never use? What's the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You've decided there's some event that is so bad you'd end the world if it happened. I'm not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don't get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn't do that though.

They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won't be used!

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn't even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It's just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

They're just regular people who get up and go to work every day and are trying to make a better life for their kids, and they feel like they have been told to just shut up when they have complained about the things that are hurting them in their own lives

This applies to everyone. It applies to the immigrants Trump wants to deport. It applies to the trans people Trump wants to deny care to. It applies to the people Trump wants to jail for being enemies within. Trump badmouths people trying to live their lives literally on a daily basis.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 days ago

That TLS handshake went hard

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 days ago

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 48 points 4 days ago

As a Canadian, I think "Americans are crazy" followed by "Americans are crazy".

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 39 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

3 cups Beef broth, 1/2 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce, 6 sprigs of fresh parsley, 1 gallon of moonshine, 3 carrots.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

I tried to keep the example simple since this is ELI5. If you take the number of electors a state has a divide it by the states population, you'll get its electors per capita.

28 electors for 19 million people equals 1.47 electors per million people for New York.

30 electors for 22 million people equals 1.36 electors per million people for Florida

Idaho gets 4 electors for 2 million people equals 2 electors per million.

Since it's the number of electors sent to Washington that decide who gets to be president, sending more electors per capita means a state has more influence on the outcome.

50% of Americans live in just 9 states. The other 50% live in the remaining 41 states. If the 9 states all voted one way, and the 41 other states voted the other, the popular vote would be 50/50, but the electoral college results would be a landslide victory for whoever won in 41 states.

The main reason someone becomes president while losing the popular vote is because they won the electors from a bunch of the smaller states. Smaller states are less populated and more rural. Rural people tend to vote conservative since they benefit less from progressive policies and prefer tradition. Conservatives therefore have an edge due to the electoral college. There were 4 presidents that won without the popular vote. All of them were Republican. Given there have only been 59 elections in American history, that's a 6.8% chance the loser of the popular vote wins.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 52 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

BEGONE THOT

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 40 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

In America, the people don't elect the president. The states send electors to Washington and all the electors form the "electoral college". It is this electoral college that elects the president. To make it a bit democratic, each state holds a vote to see who the residents of the state want as president. The electors that state sends to Washington will be told who they should elect based on who the residents of the state voted for.

A simple example. Imagine the US only has two states: New York and Florida.

New York has 19 million residents and gets to send 28 electors to the electoral college. Florida has 22 million residents gets to send 30 electors to the electoral college.

All 19 million residents of New York vote for Kang. New York sends 28 electors and tell them they should elect Kang. In Florida, the vote is split. 12 million vote for Kodos and 10 million vote for Kang. Since more people voted for Kodos, Florida sends 30 electors and tells them to elect Kodos.

The popular vote is 29 million votes for Kang and 12 million votes for Kodos. The electoral college votes are 30 votes for Kodos and 28 votes for Kang. Kodos wins even though 70% of Americans voted for Kang.

26
23

I've recently started using the Boost for Lemmy app on my phone and it's amazing. I was using Liftoff before but I'm switching over. However, I've noticed an issue. When I browse through communities using Liftoff I see a lot more posts and comments than when I use Boost.

I figured this was an issue with Boost at first, but when I used my computer to edit these screenshots I noticed the same thing happens in my browser!

Opening up https://lemmy.world/c/boostforlemmy I see all the posts that Liftoff shows. Of course I'm not logged in since my account is on Lemmy.ca.

When I log into Lemmy.ca and view the community though: https://lemmy.ca/c/boostforlemmy@lemmy.world I only see the posts that Boost shows! Many posts are now missing!

I figured this is an issue with Lemmy.ca blocking stuff. But wait! The most recent post (titled "Bug: Hiding all read posts also hides...") has the URL https://lemmy.world/post/6954944 which, of course, does not allow me to comment on since I'm not logged in. If I search for that post through Lemmy.ca I find the equivalent post with the URL: https://lemmy.ca/post/7377534 which now allows me to comment on it through my Lemmy.ca account.

Does any one know what's going on here? Clearly Lemmy.ca can "see" all the posts in the BoostForLemmy community on Lemmy.world. Even Liftoff manages to show all of them! So why does my browser and Boost for Lemmy not show everything unless I specifically search it out?

56
48
Dear libRules (lemmy.ca)

Shuba shuba

6
Rule (lemmy.ca)
view more: next ›

ImplyingImplications

joined 1 year ago