My favorite cynical take is save yourself some time and effort, find someone you hate and buy them a house.
You said it was already late, so what's the point, right? Oh, or is it better late than never?
Well best we don't do anything then.
They've already said they'll seize his ny assets if he refuses to pay.
Somehow old is the only bad thing you can say about him. I'm not going to say there aren't other people I'd like as president, but I do think this is a dangerous game. We need unity against the other guy. We need solutions, not shitting on the best situated candidate. I'm sure you don't have one.
What I got from your post was a false equivalence. I'm really tired of people shitting on a legitimately good choice because they aren't getting exactly what they want. Or are Russian trolls, it's hard to tell the difference these days.
The other guy has already said he wants to be a dictator. I'm hostile to people that will get him elected either through direct support, or trying to kill enthusiasm for the better candidate.
Tinidril's post is an oversimplification, so much so as to be misleading. My post I believe would fall into the technically correct bucket.
Because he's good, Harris is good. The other guy will take a wrecking ball to the nation's institutions to enrich himself at the expense of his enemies.
The democratic choice is the one people vote into office.
The Senate doesn't confirm the next president for life. The VP is sworn into office if he were to die. I'd be happy to have Harris in the office too.
Speak for yourself I'm happy to have Biden again.
Pretty, but not a ladybug.
https://www.bhg.com/gardening/pests/animal/ladybug-asian-beetle-difference/
So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time.
A lot of things need to happen fast to reduce the impacts of climate change. Amongst them it's gaining the knowledge of how to do all of the things that will need doing sooner or later. Lots of ideas will fail for various reasons. The more tools we work on the better off we'll be.
The other thing is it really coming at the expense of other decarbonization efforts? Or is it happening in parallel with other things.
It doesn't stop the other work well need to do, and I'm not convinced it's a net negative. I think there's room to experiment at this scale and make adjustments as we progress. Hydrogen for instance is its own can of worms and it's not clear it's the best solution, but maybe it will be. We should work on it.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
What's in there could only make you sick.
It wasn't collectively known that software was hard to do right at that time. If it always performed as intended it would have made for a less expensive and perfectly safe machine. It's the textbook case in doing software wrong because there wasn't one that happened before it.
For the love of everything, at least let's stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.