I've got the gotek and rbg2hdmi installed in my Amiga 500, but neither is working quite right. I think the rbg2hdmi needs to be configured for a certain cpld using the on screen menu, but the gotek is just missing some files on the USB stick.
Looking forward to finishing up these two little things and I can start playing with the Amiga for real...
Looking forward to finishing up these two little things and I can start playing with the Amiga for real...
Yeah, actually...
People don't always agree with me when I post thoughtful arguments here, and sometimes I'm wrong and they're right, but I never get the impression that I'm getting a preprogrammed response back. People engage with the argument I made for the most part. Every time I try the same around redditors (even redditors on places like lemmy) I get back something a youtuber said or something written in an article, presented as if it's their own original thoughts, but those thoughts rarely fit in with what I had to say because I'm not usually regurgitating someone else's points.
People don't always agree with me when I post thoughtful arguments here, and sometimes I'm wrong and they're right, but I never get the impression that I'm getting a preprogrammed response back. People engage with the argument I made for the most part. Every time I try the same around redditors (even redditors on places like lemmy) I get back something a youtuber said or something written in an article, presented as if it's their own original thoughts, but those thoughts rarely fit in with what I had to say because I'm not usually regurgitating someone else's points.
I don't think this plan sounds remotely correct.
Part of the softwood lumber dispute is that it's already really easy to buy canada's lumber because you don't need to own the land since the crown owns it and they just sell the resources on that land.
Part of the softwood lumber dispute is that it's already really easy to buy canada's lumber because you don't need to own the land since the crown owns it and they just sell the resources on that land.
Not particularly. Because what you do is you go in and you look at the rulings through a partisan lens, and then when that lens doesn't correctly predict what's going to happen it proves that the partisan lens isn't particularly useful. The attack right now is that the supreme Court is extremely partisan only ruling in one case, but we can prove that viewed through that lens, at any given moment the output doesn't make any sense.
Nick Freitas is great, his podcasts often have deep investigations of different ideas and he's clever enough to not juat parrot bullet points.
In a recent effortpost, I investigated a mistake in that movie. Mike judge focuses on the anti-intellectual and auntie elitist form of idiocracy, but I ended up making the argument that there is a second form of Idiocracy that is pseudo intellectual and elitist in nature. As an example, in the movie the famous TV show "ow my balls" is often mentioned, but The true idiocracy universe would have a second show, just as vacuous, of watching people watch "ow my balls" to laugh at how unrefined and uncultured they are.
At the end of the movie, the anti-intellectual anti-elitist idiocracy is convinced that watering plants with water instead of brawndo works because the plants start growing again. The elitist anti-intellectual idiocracy may not be convinced by that, and instead we'll start parroting the line "correlation is not causation" and start demanding to see the peer reviewed study, in spite of nobody actually understanding what correlation does not imply causation actually means, nor would a peer-reviewed study actually is, nor what peer review actually entails.
At the end of the movie, the anti-intellectual anti-elitist idiocracy is convinced that watering plants with water instead of brawndo works because the plants start growing again. The elitist anti-intellectual idiocracy may not be convinced by that, and instead we'll start parroting the line "correlation is not causation" and start demanding to see the peer reviewed study, in spite of nobody actually understanding what correlation does not imply causation actually means, nor would a peer-reviewed study actually is, nor what peer review actually entails.
Thankfully that part of the law never comes up that much because the fact that they don't blink tends to make them look nefarious by default.
It seems that whenever dozens of former intelligence officials agree on something it's almost certainly to be false...
The purpose of reading news ought not to be indoctrinated to any one side, but to get accurate information so you can try to make good decisions outside of whatever a left or right wing establishment wants you to do.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
No political faction has a monopoly on the truth, and no political faction has a monopoly on lies. Therefore just choosing one and assuming they'll be the "good guys" forever is stupid. No major political faction has perfectly clean hands and that's why if truth matters -- and it does -- individuals must think for themselves and critically analyze what they're presented with.
Both parties have at one time attacked the Supreme Court. Nobody on the left had anything to say when the supreme Court judicated away a major policy contention in Obergefell, but the right wasn't happy with it. Now the right is quite happy with the outcome of the Trump immunity verdict, and the left is laying the groundwork to destroy the institution by going after every Justice who doesn't agree with them politically. Whether the left or right likes it or not, both cases were tried based on existing law, and while individuals may disagree with the outcome, it isn't as if these were legislators creating something out of whole cloth. Civil rights already existed in the case of Obergefell, and sovereign immunity existed in common law predating the United States by hundreds of years.
The same chief justice presided over both cases, and yet for political partisans one was an example of the law working right and the other was an example of the law working wrong.
It's probably for the best that prosecution for official actions gets taken off the table for both parties because political processes are the things that should be guiding the decisions of presidents, not whether someone's going to be able to pigeonhole them into a partisan conviction. And in the end, Obergefell ended up being the right decision regardless of you political affiliation, with 51% of Republicans now supporting gay marriage in spite of it being a contentious issue in the past. Not saying that either decision is fully correct, but it's hard to say either one was entirely wrong either.
A counterpoint to Obergefell or the Trump immunity case proving how partisan the court is would be other cases at the same time that the same side lost. The Trump election cases could have taken on those cases and overturned the 2020 election but the supreme court chose not to in a major loss to the Republicans. Around the same time as Obergefell which gave the left a massive win, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. limited some Obamacare mandates based on religious freedom, handing the right a win.
That isn't to say the court is infallible or that it isn't occasionally partisan, but rather to show that reality is a lot more complicated than hit pieces might portray.
I was just joking, I've been using brave on all my devices that can run it for years. The only Google product I still use on a daily basis is YouTube.
I have a rule: Don't go to New York City, not even once. It is, as I understand it, a little hell.
Yep. Design your shit to last forever and design your shit to be repairable if it does break. 90% of things we replace would never be replaced in our lifetimes after that. "But the companies will go our of business!" maybe or maybe they can try to create stuff we actually want to buy instead of just selling us progressively worse versions of the same shit year after year.
The AC/DC conversion is just a bridge rectifier and some smoothing caps. They tend to be pretty minimal power draws.
Having officially upgraded from 16GB to a whopping 32GB of memory, I'm excited at the prospect of having three chrome tabs open at once without swapping to disk!
I wonder what would happen if someone tried to wire up a European 220v light bulb to an American 120v light socket? The active current regulation chip would presumably try to keep the current the same, and the voltage across each LED would be half, so as long as you're hitting the minimum threshold voltage, you should be driving those LEDs way less. Pick up a 100W equivalent bulb, it's suddenly putting out 50W equivalent, I'd guess you'd have a bulb that lasts more or less forever.
Or maybe not?
Or maybe not?