Add wanna-be polygamist to the list of terms to describe him.

Oh yes I was not commenting on any of that. Data privacy and the reliability of computer hardware and software over time are separate issues.

I was just speaking from the basic-level user experience of operating a vehicle- touch screens are terrible. Pretty much everything you want to do in a car should have 3 requirements:

1. Keep your eyes on the road. Controls need to be in consistent locations and have some other way of communicating what they are and what their status is non-visually. Dials, knobs, buttons that lock in-or-out, switches, levers, sliders. Anything close together needs to be differentiated- buttons with different textures, shapes, or resistance for example. This is very difficult and almost antithetical to touchscreens. The strength of the touchscreens is their flexibility- they can have deep menus that re-use a small amount of space efficiently, but the trade-off is that they need the user’s vision to work.

2. Non-visual feedback to the user for their activation. Touch screens CAN do this with haptics and sounds. And there are physical inputs where this can be a problem, like regular buttons or knobs with uniform shapes. Levers, sliders, switches, and dials have this as inherent properties

3. Response time. Touch screens on vehicles are usually underpowered and seem to take seconds to register an input, then apply it. If the music changes and is suddenly way too loud, it’s annoying to be subjected to that for 5 seconds while navigating the touch screen and waiting for it to work, in contrast to a regular old volume potentiometer that operates basically instantly. Really any music or audio controls can get really annoying with delay, though I’ll admit those are a luxury. Things like the lights are not.

4. Not a requirement, but cars should be judged on whether these things FEEL good. Touch screens have improved slightly over time with better materials and haptics, but that only applies to higher-end ones and still isn’t great. Cheap physical inputs can suck too, though they are usually still better than touch screens.

“No touchscreen” is a really great selling point imo

You should looked up how Congress works. They need a Supermajority to pass most legislation, and the Dems only had that for about 4 months from 2009-2010. The last time they had that control was under Kennedy/Johnson in the 60’s.

Even without those DINOs they still didn’t have a Supermajority. Honestly I think most people just don’t understand the difference between a majority and Supermajority and mistakenly believe 50 is enough in the Senate.

Then why didn’t Republicans vote for it?

And not just votes. Republican Attorneys General across the country tried to get it overturned in the courts. The House and Senate Minority Leaders have quotes strongly against it. Romney himself did not hold any office at the time the ACA was passed, but was preparing for his next presidential campaign. He described it as “an unconscionable abuse of power…the act should be repealed”.

If you look more closely at the Massachusetts state government in 2006 when Romney was governor and passed “Romneycare”, you’ll find that the state Senate was dominated by Democrats 34-6, while the state House was dominated by Democrats 139-20-1. There’s a much, much stronger case that Romneycare in Massachusetts was a Democratic piece of legislation than there is that the ACA was Republican.

The Republicans had plenty of control of the federal government before Obama, and their plan of "leaving Americans with nothing* was already in place. That’s what the Republicans voted for in 2010 by voting against the ACA.

Who said anything about dual majorities?

What times are these?

As I said, they have only had control for 4 months in my lifetime. Before that you need to go back to 1961-1969 with Kennedy and Johnson. I would actually need to do more research to find out whether they had a Supermajority or not, but it’s not even worth looking up because going that far back in time shifts the politics of the parties significantly and is not very relevant to today. The Democratic Party still has plenty of Southern Conservatives all the way into the Carter years.

So I would love to know what pattern you are seeing.

Romney was indeed a Republican, but a moderate one. The Church of Latter Day Saints has always been a weird outlier in American politics, and as a Mormon Romney largely follows that tradition. Utah itself is a great reminder that the trends Americans see with the two-party system, where every issue is a binary choice with the GOP or DNC each picking an option, the reality on the ground is more complicated.

It’s also worth looking to how Romney was the first senator in US history to vote to impeach his own party’s president. He did it again the 2nd time Trump was impeached too, along with a handful of others.

That’s not to say that I like Romney at all, or even that I like the ACA or even that I like the Democrats.But Romney is perhaps the furthest left Republican and created that initial bill with the intention of being a bipartisan compromise. He’s far closer to Neoliberal than Nazi. And while it was the foundation, his bill was NOT the final bill that passed into law. The bill that did pass saw 100% of Republican senators vote against it. It passed 220-215 in the House with 1 meaningless Republican vote. To say it was a Republican bill is simply historically inaccurate.

My apologies if a crosses a line with the comment, but calling the ACA Republican is demonstrably and factually false and, in my opinion, actively spreading disinformation.

The bill passed the Senate 60-39, with 1 abstaining. All 39 Republicans Senators voted against it. It passed 220-215 in the House with only 1 Republican vote.

If you want to say it wasn’t enough, that’s completely fair and I would agree. If you want to say the Democratic Party, both back then and today, is dominated by Neoliberal interests and suppresses Progressives or Socialists or whoever else then I would also agree. But none of that was the conversation- the bill that passed was demonstrably not Republican.

Removed by mod

They had control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives. I never said they didn’t have that- I said they didn’t have control of the Federal Government.

The Senate was tenuous. Just having 50 Dem Senators (well, that’s not true either because you need to include Independents to get to 50) isn’t good enough- you need 60 votes to have a filibuster-ptoof majority. The Dems just barely scraped that together in 2009, complicated in part by Ted Kennedy’s seizure and eventual death and Al Franken delayed in getting seated due to recounts. They only had 60 votes (still including Independents) from September 24th 2009 - February 4th, 2010. 4 months of controlling the federal government.

That is why when the 2008 financial crisis happened and the Dems wanted to pas a stimulus package in 2009, they had to get Snowe, Collins, and Spectre (who would leater switch parties to get them to 60) from the Republican side in order to get that passed.

They absolutely did not have control of the Supreme Court at any point in the Biden administration and the Republican SCOTUS shut down a lot of what the Biden administration tried to do. I remember checking every day for months to see how they would rule on Student Loan forgiveness, for example.

This is why they have the perception of being powerless- because they’ve pretty much never had the power. The Republicans love people who say the Democrats are useless. They love saying Biden didn’t do what he promised when he DID and the GOP-dominated Supreme Court reversed it. They love being able to stall Democrat legislation and blaming a Democrat president. Everything the Dems have done outside of those 4 months have required careful compromises and negotiation with the GOP to pass.

Now I’m thinking about other options. Tomato milk. Grape milk. Orange milk. Lemon milk.

I agree about “fuck em”, let’s get out with the old and in with the new.

But what majorities are you talking about? I keep seeing this repeated all over the internet- the sentiment that Democrats get nothing done when they have control. The problem is that I’m 33 years old and the Dems have only had control of the federal government for a few months of my life, and that’s when they passed the ACA. I can’t really make a judgement on what the Dems do when they’re in power because they largely have not been.

Another giant stumbles. Give it to me Lemmy - what’s the alternative I should switch to?

Tell me you did r read past the headline without telling me you didn’t read past the headline.

The OP isn’t an idiot. There have been case studies of small communities who have done similar things successfully. In fact, Wikipedia has a list of such places.

Of course, smaller and more reasonable changes would be much more likely to succeed. What the OP posed is extreme and hyperbolic, and the exact details of enforcement don’t make a ton of sense (like… There’s no need to ban licenses if you just ban driving personal vehicles on public roads, or in sections of public roads). But I don’t know that this qualifies for this community.

I think more general advise would be to understand the perspective you receiving and how it relates to yours.

Collectors are great for finding weird and evil things. Like “this cartridge had some special chip that makes it different from every other game on the system” and I think “oooh I kinda wanna try emulating that”. Or “this developer made this weird bad game a few years before they found success with their breakout hit series” which can be interesting to check out.

Also a lot of “gamer” reviewers have their own issues. Fromsoft is a great example- they purposely neglect areas of their games that they don’t want to focus on, and fans have interpreted their business priorities as genius design decisions that every game should copy. No more minimaps, no tutorials or onboarding systems, no explicit story. There are Nintendo fans who eat up every single thing they do and love to pay a premium for it- somewhat like Apple people.

Not to say those perspectives are “wrong” or shouldn’t exist, but it’s usually good to try to look at different perspectives.

I always thought it was weird how much attention people were paying to span messages. Giving them that much attention only serves whatever purpose they have.

This feels like it would be an actual Deadpool joke