Are there a lot of founders of the company or do they all just have Fabio hair? I only see two signatures. Something seems fishy here.

Can you imagine Trump trying to even navigate stuffy legal language? Nevermind writing some.

A few Lemmy users ain’t gonna cut it. This is one of those things where it won’t go away until the subject of the stories goes away.

Counting down the days, personally… I just don’t know how many days there are to count down.

That name, tho.

"Marky Mark needs ALL of his money to buy Calvin Klein underwear >:( "

Right, for example, your email address so they can harass the hell out of you (if you stumble onto the site and see the “FREE SAMPLE PACKS” link). Or the free packs are just partial and they’re supposed to entice you to buy the whole pack (where the actual good samples are). Or the packs lead you to their not-free VSTs (which I’m also not terribly interested in, but I’m not their target for that stuff).

Of course - Cymatics entire business model is harassing the hell out of people via email to either look at their new sample packs or buy them on discount.

If you pay attention, they give away free packs + will have promos where they give you credits for free packs and then put a bunch of packs up for discount. I’m not particularly fond of their samples, but free is free and I’ve found stuff I like in their collection.

The long, drawn out metaphorical explanation was unnecessary and frankly kind of condescending.

I’m not over here trying to be some champion of the electoral college and I’d be more interested in seeing a real push for ranked choice or one of its cousins.

The point I was making was that if you sat at home and didn’t vote at all, your chosen candidate would never see the inside of the oval office and I went into my understanding of why it is the way it is. Ultimately, voting under the current system is not entirely worthless as you seemed to claim in the original post I responded to.

We’ve had something like 59 elections in total and 5 of them involved the winning candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election by way of the electoral college. Only one of those elections - the very first - involved anything even remotely close to your example (but still not42.3% vs 31.6%). The other 4 had a difference of like 2% or less between the two leading candidates.

The electoral college was devised as a compromise between direct democracy and congressional voting and I’m sure it was done in good faith to try to make sure everyone was represented, but this system seems to truly show its cracks when we’re facing an insanely stark national split like we see today and there’s no argument that we should probably shake things up and get rid of it.

I mean, that’s not entirely accurate - a vote for a presidential candidate is a vote for the slate of electors tied to said candidate - effectively a vote for your candidate, albeit indirectly. Electors can, however, be required to vote according to popular vote as required by the state they’re electors in. Or they could have pledged to vote according to specific party. I don’t know for sure, but I assume state elector requirements override party pledges.

My understanding is that when it was devised, it was a compromise between direct democracy (which would honestly be potentially dangerous - how many people do you know where you can’t help but go, “Fuck… This guy can vote.”) and election via congressional vote. It certainly ain’t perfect and I have no bias towards it, but it’s a system like anything else that people tend to point at and blame when things don’t go their way or just ignore or even defend when things do go their way.

- George Costanza

No, that’s “predestination.” You’re thinking of a medical condition one had before they signed up for an insurance policy and then got denied coverage for.

Won’t catch me standing in the way - it’s pretty entertaining, anyway.

Sure, but at this point he’s in an endless tailspin. Could also just stop talking about him at this point altogether, probably. Whatever supporters there are, he’ll never be able to dig himself out to face down Trump now.

The initial video was kind of funny, but we could just focus on how fucking awful he is.

I can’t remember what it was specifically, but friend basically ruined a major plot point in Witcher 3 for me fully knowing I was a good ways out from discovering it on my own. As a kneejerk reaction and knowing he was about 20 or 30 hours into Fallout 4, I told him who runs the Institute and what relation that individual has to the protagonist.

He was angrier than I was because I had assumed Witcher 3 turned out the way he revealed, but my spoiler absolutely blindsided him. He never ruined anything for me again.

Well if it turns out anything like the game, it’s a bit of a rollercoaster ride and you walk away with the paperwork and no bounty on your head. Id consider it, too, tbqh lol

Just wait until someone hits the “Antagonize” button when interacting with him. Or some Native folks ask him to break into a crude oil plant to steal paperwork that proves the land is theirs.

It’s all downhill from here.

If you’re envisioning a sloppily torn scrap of paper with “KILL EVERY1” scrawled on it with crayon, I could see where you’re coming from, but paper battle maps with points of interest/focus being used by a pretty primitive (comparable to who they’re up against) fighting force makes more sense, though.

If this was planned so tightly that they didn’t let the bulk of their fighters (or large swaths of lower rung leadership) know details until days (or less) before the attack, then it stands to reason they’d hand out infosheets. That seems to be what happened here.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-israel-was-duped-hamas-planned-devastating-assault-2023-10-08/

Who are we kidding anyway? They’re still going to go up 80% over the same period of time.

How do they account for a service like privacy.com which allows you to generate multiple dummy card numbers for a single card?

If the cost of subscription is, instead, the barrier to entry then all we’ll end up seeing is parties who have the resources for wide spanning scams or propaganda or whatever it is - and if they’re paying then they expect to profit or score gains in some way that justify their costs, which likely means they’re effective at what they do

They’re there… err… the remains are, at least.