Pronouns: They/Them
It looks like the synthesis of those two seemingly contradictory things is: If Congress is still in session after the 10 day grace period for the president to sign it has passed, the bill is treated as signed and becomes law. However if the 10 day grace period goes by and Congress is no longer in session at the end of that period, the bill is treated as vetoed.
Another approach: Does nibbling on it count as a signature?
I get where you are coming from, but this event is pretty much entirely the fault of Crowdstrike and the countless organizations that trusted them. It’s definitely a show of how massive outages are more likely when things are overly centralized and proprietary, and managed by big, shitty, profit driven organizations. Since crowdstrike operates in kernel space, it doesn’t matter which operating system it’s on, it can break it if it does something stupid. In fact they managed to break some redhat machines not too long ago, and some Debian machines not long before that. It’s just the impact wasn’t as far reaching as this recent utter fuckup, just because fewer critical machines were affected, so we didn’t hear about those smaller fuckups in the news.
I think that the Democratic Party is hated both from the left and the right, and calling them the Democrat Party makes some sense if you don’t view them as aligning with real democracy. Kind of like when one calls pro-life people “pro-forced-pregnancy” or “anti-abortion”.
Like there’s probably plenty of astroturfing out there, but I don’t think this is a strong sign a particular account is astroturf. Since we are all exposed to everyone’s discourse, that way of referring to Democrats could fairly easily hop between different groups that don’t like Democrats. Like I wouldn’t be surprised if “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” makes its way to the right somehow just because it’s anti-liberal, even though it originates from the left.
Despite its origin on the right, I think that type of phrasing makes a bit more sense coming from the left than the right, because the right does not actually care at all about democracy, except when they equate it with capitalism, and democracy is like the left’s whole deal.
I was gonna answer that most animals don’t live as long and reproduce faster than humans (so populations survive despite increased cancer risk), but when I looked into it I found a deep rabbit hole. In the case of wolves, I’m sure plenty died early on, because the populations present appear to have some genetic immune adaptations that protect them from cancer. I know other species (like frogs) have dark skin because the melenin increased the survival rate of the darker frogs at the time of the accident. So that is to say probably a lot of wildlife died, and that natural selection lead to some critters that are pretty resistant to radiation.
I don’t think that’s the actual etymology. From what I can find it was an onomonpia about the sounds turkeys make, and a word for gunk. The second part of it is pronounced differently from the racial epiphet (with a more middle vowel like book rather than a forward vowel like boot), and which I understand to be a separate word with a separate origin. I avoid that one due to its spelling and nearness to the slur, but in a compound word it’s less likely to be misunderstood. The original use case of the word by the person who supposedly coined it was for needless verbosity. I could see some English speakers retroactively egg corning it and using it as a pun, or maybe it has an older origin than is recorded or the coiner was dishonest, but I can’t find an example or evidence of that having happened. If you have an example or personal experience it being used like you describe I’d definitely be interested. It’s also possible that I am misconstruing your claim to be one of etymology when it isn’t.
Interesting! Most I know were either born in the US or have been in the US since they were kids, primarily communicate in english, and discovered their transness while here. You might be right with the cultural/language translation being a factor. But I’ve also seen “Transexual”, “Transgénero”, “mujer/hombre trans” used by Spanish speakers which tracks not that far from common English usage. I wonder if there’s a different distinction being made or if it’s intertwined with the particular individuals’ conservative ideology in some way.
It’s interesting to me that your experience is so vastly different from mine given we live in the same area (SF bay area). Most trans people I know, including myself, fall on the far left, and at significantly higher rates than the cis people I know (Queer or not). I’ve also never heard the term “t-female-presenting” before, it is completely foreign to me. I mostly hear and use “trans women” or “transfeminine”.
I wonder if there’s another demographic factor, or you are in a unique community of trans people. The people in my circle are generally 20-35, nonreligious, working class, often living paycheck to paycheck, and are actively and primarily in community with other trans people, as a support structure. How would you describe your circle?
If its and it’s are used “incorrectly” long enough, it’s possible the conjunction will lose the ’ through use. Descriptive vs prescriptive etc.
Also, in response to the person you are responding too, there are advantages for our writing system not being entirely phonetic, namely that different dialects of English that may not be easily interintelligible via spoken word are interintelligible via writing. Like a weaker form of the same benefit of the Chinese writing system.
It seems to me that all of the reasons they provides are all reasons to get married. Especially raising a child, given the privileges that are afforded to married parents in a lot of places (especially in the case of adoption, or IVF using a stranger’s genetic material). Something doesn’t have to require marriage for the benefits of it to outweigh the cons for a specific situation.
The question seems to me to be kind of confusing. What alternative are you comparing it to? Some sort of local structure like domestic partnership?
I think they are saying that the model is flawed on a more basic level, since workers are the source of all value, and thus workers are the wine bottle. Of course trickle down economics is accurate if you view it as value trickling (or rather being siphoned) from the poor to the rich. Essentially refuting the ideology that views jobs as a resource that is provided for society by the rich, when the reality is that jobs under capitalism are workers creating value and the rich siphoning more than their fair share from the workers’ output and returning a pitance.