Pidesco

She'll be getting my 980 ti anyway, and I'll need to get her a new PSU first. In any case I'd still need to buy a new mobo cpu ram combo for her. You wouldn't mind? I don't have anything to offer in return other than a dead 580 GTX and a 460 GTX(also dead).

So my daughter's GPU appears to have finally died, putting pressure on me to upgrade her PC ASAP. After following prices daily for a few months, I really am loathe to pay a 50% premium on a GPU, especially now that prices seem to be slowly going down. Also her and my wife are lobbying me to just buy a prebuilt (the humanity) as there are a few Intel based acer computers with 3070s currently available for about 16000 SEK. It still is overpriced. It just appears not to be because the market went insane. Basically, I really want to wait like a month, at least but, obviously, I understand the kid's plight. The prat.

That Dune comparison mostly shows how gray everything is in the new one.

I used to be a Cisco specialist but nowadays I use mostly HP Aruba. They can support PoE if you pay extra, but not Deadfire.

All poorly paid.

Not a lot, when taking into account both the average wages, and the revenue of said companies.

I am aware that Zakaria jumped ship due to Trump. That doesn't make him a Democrat any more than, say, Liz Cheney.

He makes some valid points (Democrat legislatures are, indeed, often incompetent) but his dismissal of "Republican advantages", to push his own theories is disengenuous. The Republican advantage in state legislatures is almost exclusively a matter of demographics. As for businesses leaving California to Texas, one could argue that it could even help Democrats in Texas, although it shouldn't make that much of a difference either way. Also, Zakaria used to be a Reagan conservative. Just because he isn't the Trumpiest Trumper that ever Trumped, it doesn't make him a Democrat. Hence why he is basically pushing a narrative that spending by Democrat state governments should be curtailed.

If only someone would criminalize crime, things would start to change.

https://issafrica.org/amp/iss-today/why-is-crime-and-violence-so-high-in-south-africa https://issafrica.org/amp/iss-today/the-business-of-dis-organised-crime-in-south-africa

Season 4 is the one about the school system. It shows how the kids are often pushed towards drugs and a life of crime, due to trauma, abuse, peer pressure, a under budgeted school system wholly unprepared to help the students, and quite simply a lack of any good options. There simply isn't a support system in place for too many kids, be it their family, the school, or child services. Children basically need to be really smart, not make a single mistake ever, and be really lucky. If any one of these three factors fails at any point, they are screwed.

Responsibility for your own actions does not stand diametrically opposed to society and institutions having a detrimental effect on your actions and behaviors. Both can be true. The point isn't about individual people, it is that something should be done about negative systemic effects on people's decisions. I recommend watching the fourth season of The Wire, to understand systemic racism. Also because it is really good.

The thing is "individual people are often racist" is a problem that should be tackled individually, so it shouldn't even really have enter the public discourse, except as perhaps context. Systemic racist, however, is a sociopolitical issue that perpetuates and aggravates a bunch of different problems in people's lives, including "individual people are often racist." So the problem with, say, the George Floyd case wasn't that that specific policeman was a ****bag and that he should be dealt with, but rather that institutions around George Floyd and the cop facilitate and support, deliberately or not, the cop's behavior.

For some reason that article you posted is defining racism as institutional and as a power differential. Which is kind of a weird way of framing the problem and I don't think it helps anyone. Better or worse (I don't think either of those articles are very good), what those two articles seem to be getting at (through a seriously meandering path) is that the true problem that needs to be addressed is systemic racism. And using "black people can be racist too" as a counter argument to "systemic racism is the problem" is either stupidly missing the point, or willingly trying to divert the attention from the actual issue.

That's not what the article says.

Perhaps there's a context to that statement? Like, say, there being a history of white people actively setting minorities up against each other? https://news.yahoo.com/white-supremacy-root-race-related-120244625.html

Great narration.

For decades Israel's modus operandi in Palestine has been the equivalent of a school bully that punches a kid when no one is watching and then cries foul when he gets punched back. Except everyone is watching and crying "my antisemitism", instead. I have no idea if Omar is a good person or not, but it's exceedingly clear that she is right in this instance. Pelosi's statement was pretty shameful, though.

I like that the bread places are designed to specifically use the worst bread.

That's the typical straw man every gun loving American uses about gun control. Gun control doesn't mean stripping everyone of every gun there is. At all. Anyway, I just thought that for the poor dog you'd do anything. Anything! <--that's a single tear

https://abc13.com/mom-accidentally-shoots-her-son-trying-to-shoot-dog-5-year-old-shot-by-angelia-mia-vargas-deadly-conduct-of-a-firearm/10728726/ @Guard DogHow about some gun control now?

That Danish decision is clearly a disgrace.

That is not happening, as societies get richer and more stable overall, people just stop wanting to have that many kids. In Europe this has been happening for like 40 or 50 years. The internet or "the promotion of dumb behavior" has nothing to do with it. I mean you either are so poor that you need extra kids as a work force, or you are rich enough that having kids stops being a financial and emotional burden. If you are in between (read "almost everyone in advanced economies"), you just aren't going to have that many kids. The fact of the matter is that the entrance of women into the work force has not increased families purchasing power as much as it should, especially considering that during the 20th century in advanced economies, kids went from being potential family income to dead weights (this is a good thing, in case you are wondering). People aren't having kids later because feminism is promoting it. People are leaving their parents' houses later and later because they can't afford it, they aren't having kids earlier because they can't afford it, and they aren't having more kids because they can't afford it. Real wages haven't kept pace with the growth of advanced economies in the past 50 years. That's it. If you want people to have more kids they have to make more money. Big companies across the board are making loads and loads more money every year, but that money isn't entering the economy in a real way. The Swedish government has been promoting having more kids for years, by the way. More money paid to families with more kids, more time at home with newborns, free child dental care, free college. Anecdotally, I can say that upper middle class families appear have more kids now. It is not uncommon for me to see 3+ kids families around. Still, they are not having 6+ kids, which I imagine would be necessary to offset all the families that have between 0 and 2 kids. There's only so much one can do if wages are low. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

My experience here in Sweden is that assimilation and integration takes at least 10 years, there's really no two ways about it. I was here in '98 when the "ghettos" were by and large filled with people from the Balkans. They weren't particularly well accepted, they were insular, crime rates were higher and, to a degree, they had brought their conflicts along with them. Right wing rhetoric was pretty much the same back then. Nowadays, however, they are a completely accepted and integrated part of Swedish society. Now the issue with the 2015 refugee crisis is that it was huge, and the cultural differences between the Middle East and Europe are much starker. So all these problems have been exacerbated, which, coupled with the right wing rise is creating a volatile situation. Personally I'm more worried about future refugee crisis. I can only assume the coming population displacements will be much larger, dwarfing the Syrian numbers. If right wing parties are even more influential by then, we will be in for interesting times. I don't think the behavior of immigrants affected the situation all that much. It definitely doesn't help, but in this age of extreme confirmation bias, people are going to think what they want to think. Even if by some freak coincidence recent Muslim immigrants had been behaving exceedingly well(they haven't), people would still be finding reasons to complain about immigration. Here in Sweden the number of reported crimes per capita has been stable since 2008, by the way. Not sure at all if that's an effective measure of how much the refugee crisis has affected criminality here. Drug crimes have increased significantly for example. Thefts have decreased. I presume the integration factor is still different for people who emigrate to the US. American cultural hegemony and its weight in the minds of people who move to the States, has to still soften the blow of integration, despite Republican efforts to make the US as immigrant unfriendly as possible. A lot of people who move to the US actively want to be American and feel integrated.

Indy was an homage to adventure serials of the 30s and 40s. The last Indy movie was intended to be an homage to sci-fi serials, I believe. It wasn't good because it wasn't very well written, not because it went with aliens and science fiction, specifically. Spielberg just got old, perhaps.