I voted for Harris, but I feel like it’s pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.

One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I’m not saying “is” here. I’m saying “should be”.

We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there’s value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.

And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu’s whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.

For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It’s not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!

Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that’s not something we can do everywhere. We can’t repeatedly choose the “least miserable option” and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It’s just not possible.

Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, “on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is.”

Some people’s hill is their ballot.

I see the question differently.

Tl;Dr:

I think OP is hoping to read the 21st century equivalent to Muck Rakers.

Long version:

A whole lot of improvement in American quality of life came about as a result of publications and journalists called Muck Rakers in the 19th and 20th centuries.

They didn’t cover false stories. They simply covered stories that newspapers owned by capitalists tried to cover up. Things like, “physical abuse inside of Factory A” or, “employees at factory B reject union contract.”

It’s similar with r/antiwork. Most of America never realized why PopTarts were shipped with serious defects for a few months in late 2021. To most people, the quality declined out of nowhere, with no explanation.

And I don’t think most people realized the real reason California’s ports got congested. (It was a bill designed to protect gig workers – it required shipping companies to pay truck drivers for the time they spent waiting for their trucks to be loaded (instead of just the time they spent driving)).

People didn’t know because, even if current events directly impact everyone’s lives, all it takes is a few corporations deciding, “you don’t need to know about that” and access to the information through mainstream channels is shut off.

Everyone using r/antiwork knew though. They knew why there was a shipping crisis, and they knew why the glue that was supposed to seal the outside of the box of Cheez-its was now instead gluing the individual Cheez-its together.

News that wasn’t considered, “newsworthy” outside of r/antiwork got intense coverage on that subreddit.

And yeah, the subreddit was certainly biased against those corporations. But biased or not, its users were more up-to-date on those events than anyone outside of the sub.

I don’t think OP is asking for a leftist perspective on the same current events everyone else is covering. I think OP is asking for true, well-investigated stories that capitalists simply won’t air on the major networks.

You know: Muck raking.

Oh yeah, they normalize IQ every year, and 100 is always used as the median.

But thanks to the Flynn Effect, getting a 100 (the number they always choose for the middle) in 2024 means you’re significantly smarter than someone who got a 100 in 1990.

So when Carlin said, “think of a person with average intelligence” he was calling to mind (to his 1990 audience) a person who was average in 1990 but would score [EDIT: I originally said 70s to 80s, but I was off by a lot. Such a person would actually score right around 90 points] today.

This is what happens when you take the lead out of gasoline.

btw, I’m stealing this and turning it into a writing prompt over on Literature Cafe.

The post is here

The game is hampered by a lack of any retry-mission/save/load feature. Right now, players are stuck indefinitely with the negative consequences of their mistakes.

I like Joplin’s cross platform sync. I hop between phone and PC constantly with it.

Oddly enough, on a computer, I have not seen secant, cosecant, or cotangent.

I have seen sin, cos, tan, arcsin, arccos, and arctan.

Though the arc functions will only have one parameter, so if this is homework, you’ll probably be avoiding the arcs and using secant and friends

Anyways:

sin ( angle )

If someone is asking you, "which operation should you use in the body of function sin ( hyponetuse, opposite ) then I imagine the expected answer would be, / because

1. / is an operation, and because
2. opposite / hypotenuse will perform the division that yields the sine of whatever triangle those two sides belong to.

An algorithm is the meat of a function. It’s the “how.”

And if you’re using someone else’s function, you won’t touch the “how” because you’ll be interacting with the “what.” (You use a function for what it does.)

You will be creating your own algorithm by writing code, however. Because an algorithm is just a sequence of steps that, taken together, constitute an attempt at achieving an objective.

Haus is saying all the little steps that go into approximating sine occur directly on the hardware.

Ahhh… okay, yeah. That also makes sense.

… and maybe that’s why it was “previously active”?

The only way I can make sense of Lurker’s comment is:

maybe Lurker didn’t realize my edits to the post came after some people’s comments (my edits definitely came after your comment, derf). Lurker may have assumed you were dismissing the practicality of the Asia-Australia Power Link, mentioned in my edit but not in the original post.

Assuming the above, this is a miscommunication.

Assuming anything else, Lurker’s comment doesn’t make that much sense.

So we heavily incentivize industrial sites to shift operation to hours during which power production exceeds demand?

That said, R.J. Gumby was able to give a fantastic link about the storage technology currently in use.

I believe the article is arguing that we need to scale them up. Although: it mentions that the Tennessee Valley Authority already uses pumped hydroelectric storage at the foot of Raccoon Mountain (side-note, I know nothing about Tennessee, but somehow naming a mountain “Raccoon Mountain” confirms all of my stereotypes about the state), to supplement its grid during low-production hours.

Yeah, the 450 mile one – the North Sea Link – is the “longest subsea interconnector in the world.”

I think over land, you can manage longer distances (China’s transmission projects go thousands of miles), but even those aren’t going the full 3310 miles it would take to cross the Atlantic.

Which is, I’m assuming, the reason that hydrogen use and production are expected to vastly increase in the next 30 years.

Oh thanks for the link! This is a good one. According to the article we’re already using:

• Pumped hydroelectric
• Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)
• Flywheels
• Supercapacitors
• And just plain batteries

And the article ends with,

“The price of storage is coming down. The price of solving the problems in other ways is going up. Pretty soon, these prices are going to cross,” notes Boyes, suggesting cost could spur the addition of storage to the grid.

Australia too, according to a video I found.

Wait! Never mind. I should have done a simple web search before posting this question.

I found a video on it.

England already has two oversea electric cables that connect it to France on the one side and Scandinavia on the other. They have more than paid for themselves already, indicating that this a solution already being implemented in parts of the world… At least for short distances.

I can take a guess at what it tells us.

We’re lonely. We get no physical contact. No touch. No warmth. And it’s not really socially acceptable for us to seek those things, because men are scolded for emotions and vulnerability. We are scolded for anything that would enable intimacy.

And it’s to such an extent that most men are so repressed they don’t even realize they crave intimacy. They don’t even have the vocabulary to describe their need for intimacy.

Now introduce, to such a man, a “sister.”

Heavy emphasis on the quotes.

The “story” of the porn, using their family ties as a shortcut, quickly establishes that she lives with him. She bonds with him. It’s socially acceptable for him to hug her, to wrestle with her, maybe even to cuddle her. And she will always be there, because her connection to him runs deeper than most “romantic” relationships can (we’re still assuming this man can’t articulate his own need for intimacy), so he doesn’t need to worry about her abandoning him.

Naturally, this emotionally repressed man is going to look at this fictional family member, this figment of his suspension of disbelief, and say, “well I want to 🦆 her!” (I always find my keyboard’s lack of profanity amusing. I refuse to teach such an innocent piece of software how to cuss.)

What he really means is that he appreciates that intimacy. And cannot really get turned on in its absence. But he can’t say that. He can’t admit that or even know that. Because this man is not only starved of all of the above: he can’t even articulate this starvation.

Daughters? Sisters? Mothers? They all serve the same purpose as a shortcut – “here’s a person who is intimate and trusting with you by default.” The familial bond is a fast, easy way to establish prebuilt trust and affection without spending 20-30 minutes on storytelling or 20-30 hours of therapy trying to convince a repressed audience that it’s okay to have a deep, intimate, trusting connection with this consenting woman.

In other words, what it tells us about society isn’t good.