Sink in the piss.

Yeah, I remember when I tried to run an app on Linux, and it popped up and said: “Oops, the developer of this app you downloaded from the web hasn’t paid $100/year in protection money for verification. Guess you’ll have to navigate into your settings and allow running unverified apps for no reason which normal users with poor tech literacy will find burdensome or scary (and have to look up if and how they can do this, because the only options presented on the popup are ‘Move to Trash’ or ‘Cancel’).”

You don’t have to defend Apple’s obvious protection racket grift.

Damn, maybe some people don’t know that none of this is hyperbole – or just really love denying reality and slurping down the dick of their favorite multitrillion-dollar corporation’s OS. You cannot claim it’s “just like Linux” when Apple steps in as a middleman to extort developers out of money. Below is what happens to your app when you don’t pay Apple a ransom of $99/year (that’s $100 for all intents and purposes, and I’m going to call it as much instead of playing along with the old-as-dirt ‘99’ psychological trick).

I believe that, in which case “that’s not from Trump” is something they’re in no position to say matter-of-factly; they’re just guessing (and I think poorly, at that). It’s just palm-reading the post and then giving a definitive, with no caveats, “Nope, Trump didn’t write this.”

I linked to the article because trying to definitively say Trump didn’t write something definitionally has to be reserved for fake posts, not real ones that come from his account with no disclaimer and no later admission.

Sure, and if you want to argue “a staffer did it”, then “staying on point”/“generally cohesive” is a stretch to make the argument work. This has extremely jumpy flow, and trying to move the standard further back and say “bUt NoT fOr TrUmP” just turns this whole thing into an unfalsifiable hypothesis facilitated by an infinitely movable goalpost. I can point out why it’s so jumpy (any literate person should be able to), but I’m confident it’ll be met with, again, “tRuMp StAnDaRdS tHo!!”.

Edit: More importantly, though, saying confidently that “it’s not from Trump” is hilariously unfounded. I’m not arguing it is or is not from Trump, but rather that saying anything definitively like that is absurd.

Rosechu has no connections to 4-cent_garbage.com, so quit asking.

You say that with such effortless confidence without even having bothered to check, and not one of those 10 people who upvoted tried to check either. golf clap

The year is 2030. The leaders of the US, China, Cuba, Iran, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, etc. walk onto the stage and take a bow, revealing this was all an elaborate display to frighten the world into a rapid switch to renewables.

For what it’s worth, “economic terrorism” isn’t that, and he’d surely know as much. It definitionally means “non-state actors”, but that’s clearly not what Vance is referring to (state vs. state actors); it’s like he’s taking “economic warfare” and slapping the word “terrorism” over it – probably to subtly agitate Americans’ association between terrorism and the Middle East. So “it’s a blockade when we do it; it’s terrorism when they do” is the doublethink rationale here.

The sheer existence of this acts as a warning and hurdle for politicians

This will never be seen by federal or state-level legislators or executives. If you visited the website, you saw the unanimous support in California for the age verification bill. In the event it’s sent to legislators as a link, there’s almost zero chance they’ll visit, let alone read it through. In the narrow chance that, like, one out of thousands actually reads it, it will not act as a warning to them, let alone a hurdle. It doesn’t materially threaten anything they’re doing – not in a technical sense and not in the sense that anybody but an excruciatingly tiny minority will actually adopt it.

Niche communities like this wildly overestimate their reach and influence among the people outside of them. I don’t like it either, but I try to be mindful of it.

See also:

I don’t agree at all with adding age “verification” parameters to Linux (in reality, the parameters just exist; I don’t think you ever have to interact with them, so they verify nothing, but I hate the creeping surveillance anyway). This “project” nevertheless just seems like impotent dick-wagging preaching exclusively to a tiny choir and doing nothing useful technically. It comes across as petulant prattle from an LLC otherwise uninvolved in the Linux community and selling merchandise.

It wasn’t intended to be “if you live here, then hi!”. It was intended to be “if you live here, and hi!”. Could’ve been clearer, but the semicolon did its job of replacing “, and”.

Okay, this comes on behalf of the HRC, and they note this is the methodology.

Data collection was conducted from February 20 through February 23, 2026 among a sample of 1,032 respondents. The survey was conducted via web (n=1,002) and telephone (n=30) and administered in English (n=1,005) and Spanish (n=27).

Already a pretty fucked ratio for the medium. The questions also never get specific about what “equality” entails. It’s very general “rights and protections”, “access to healthcare”, employment discrimination", and “discrimination in schools”. Nothing about bathrooms; nothing about gender-affirming care. Basically just “transgender people should be allowed to exist in society”.

I’m sure even people who make fun of transgender people behind their backs in a hushed tone would say that they deserve to be able to go to school.

SSRS is okay enough as pollsters go; I just don’t think this shows much of anything, because 85% of Americans might begrudgingly say trans people deserve to be able to see a doctor, but certainly 85% do not support actual healthcare trans people need. It’s not real equality; it’s at best a strictly egalitarian idea of equality where “well I can’t do it either (by my arbitrary definitions of “not using the opposite-sex bathroom” and “changing my primary sexual characteristics and/or hormones to those of the opposite sex”), so we’re equal,” is equality.

That flaw in the “weekend” argument you point out is actually where I realized Monday–Sunday that I grew up with wasn’t as obvious as I thought. I like Sunday–Saturday mainly for the structural symmetry. (This is also somewhat cultural, but I think most places nowadays would standardize around Sunday/Saturday being stereotypical “off” days.) Every week starts with one stereotypical “off” day and ends with one stereotypical “off” day with five “business” days sandwiched between (thus “Hump Day” too is the exact middle of the week rather than just the business week). It’s not that big of a deal, but I think it’s cleaner. Unlike 24-hour time versus 12-hour, I don’t have a solid empirical argument. I’m wrong by ISO standards, but then then MDY and DMY are colloquially used much more common in most places than YMD, so I’m rarely abiding by ISO standards there.

I wouldn’t use either, it would be “last February”

I think you misread my comment. February 2025 from the perspective of May 2024 is not “last Thursday” by any definition.

Internal consistency test:

It’s May 2024. You’re talking about February 2025. Given the choice only between “This February” and “Next February”, which do you call it?

Edit: In fairness, I realize I fail this consistency test too. If, in January 2024, someone said “Next February”, I’d assume they’re referring to February 2025, since I would only ever say “this February” to refer to February 2024 to avoid confusion (even though February 2024 technically is “next February”). Urgh, my brain. “You’re making me think about this way more than I ever have. Come with me!”

(Funnily enough, if we’re invoking ISO 8601, it also defines that weeks are anchored to a year by whatever year their Thursday is in.)

I used to go by Monday–Sunday, but I’ve grown into a firm believer of Sunday–Saturday. I’m going to start my own standards organization, and we’ll have incredible tea, open access, and civilized boundaries for weeks. [relevant xkcd here]

Fair point that there’s some ambiguity, albeit not caused by an inherent ambiguity between “this” and “next”. I’d just invoke “next Thursday” in that situation because it’s the same regardless of apostasy.

three days hence

What the fuck. 😭 But “next Thursday” clearly has a well-defined 7-day period. Given a bus stop with 20 minutes between buses, the “next bus” doesn’t just start arbitrarily applying 10 minutes after the last bus left. Who would use it like this??

Edit: I’ve realized this definition was wrong and sleep-deprived and that the actual definition I use is: “This” refers to within this 7-day period of Su–Sa, “Last” refers to the last 7-day period, and “Next” refers to the next 7-day period. I was depriving myself of sleep to finish some work and came up with this. So “this” remains the same, but I just made up some definition of “next” that’s inconsistent with how I’d describe months in years. Hopefully the work is okay.

• “This Thursday” is for the Thursday contained within the Sunday–Saturday interval you’re currently in.
• “Next Thursday” means, starting from 00:00 on a given Thursday, the first Thursday you hit (not including the one you’re on if applicable) as you go forward in time from that point.
• They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Is this not universal? It seems so obvious.

• If it’s a Friday, “this Thursday” is the one from a day ago, and “next Thursday” is six days from now.
• If it’s a Tuesday, “this Thursday” and “next Thursday” are both two days from now.
• If it’s a Thursday, then “this Thursday” is today (albeit weird), and “next Thursday” is seven days from now.
• And “Thursday next week” if it’s Tuesday is the Thursday nine days from now