Schadrach

Nobody has direct evidence of the shooter’s motivations or political affiliation today. Nobody.

From the texts between him and his roomate that have been publicly released. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-shooting-prosecutor-utah

“Roommate: ‘Why?’ Robinson: ‘Why did I do it?’ Roommate: ‘Yeah.“’ Robinson: ‘I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

So, we have his direct statement to his transwoman roommate as to his motive, either you can take that at face value or claim it’s some carefully crafted lie intentionally meant to deceive us as to his real motives. You do you.

Likely based on his texts with his transwoman roommate.

Now lie detectors don’t work at all…

Meh, they do work. They just measure stress response, not truthfulness. The idea being that you’ll have a heightened stress response to a question you are lying about the answer to, which may or may not be accurate depending on individual and situation.

Breath analyzers aren’t exactly accurate. There’s a bunch of things that can give them false positives, they often aren’t properly calibrated, and the science behind them is kinda shaky. They got challenged often enough in certain states that in at least one state if an officer has you breathe in a machine and that machine produces a number higher than the legal BAC limit, that’s proof of DUI regardless of what the machine may or may not do to result in that number.

Once read a forum thread on “how your state/region is depicted in media” and had to point out that aside from one movie about a college the biggest things I could point to were the Wrong Turn movies (slasher movies about inbred cannibal hillfolk) and the movie version of Silent Hill (which is set in WV but based on Centralia, PA while the game version of Silent Hill is in New England).

Centralia, PA is one of those places with less than a dozen residents and a neat history. It’s been on fire since 1962, the government tried to eminent domain all real estate in Centralia and a handful of extremely stubborn folks fought back leading to an agreement where they get to stay there for the rest of their lives after which the property reverts to the government via eminent domain. All seven of them. Five of which are still around as of 2020, having lived under that agreement for forty years. The church still holds services, and their graveyard are still maintained, even the one that’s in a perpetual haze as the ground releases smoke.

It appears like most of Appalachia is under “swamp racists” and the rest as “NYC”, which I strongly reject. Very little of Appalachia is swamp, it’s mostly forested mountains. And it’s far to rural to be compared to NYC.

I say #2, specifically because it can be done mathematically, as opposed to trying to agree on some definition of “fairness” that isn’t completely different for every office and doesn’t have to be wholly redistricted every election as a consequence.

Say, something like least split line. Basically, if you have an even number of seats for a region, draw the shortest length line that splits the region into two regions of equal population. If you have an odd number of seats > 1, then draw the shortest line that splits the region based on number per seat given one side gets the “extra” seat (for example, for 5 seats you’d split so that one side is 2/3 of the other side and give 3 seats to one side and 2 to the other). Repeat the process for each region created by these lines until each region represents one seat. If there are multiple shortest lines, you the one closest to a NS axis. The extra seat always goes to the west side of the line.

The difference being you weren’t desperate enough to take “any hole is a goal” as a motto worth following.

Apparently I married a unicorn. She explicitly didn’t want a diamond but a sapphire and explicitly didn’t want me to spend a fortune on it. Got her ring from an online jeweler on sale. Paid less than $300 for it. During the first Trump admin. We had talked about what she wanted and I found something close after shopping around. Then I held onto it for six months planning when to ask.

In the US, age of consent varies by state. In most US states the age of consent to sex with someone who is not in a position of authority is 16. Often with a close in age exception. 18 gets used in US media so much because that’s what it is in CA and NY, and that’s where most media is made.

18 is also federal age of consent, but that only applies when an incident involves crossing state lines.

While the effect of not having as much random porn on steam is kinda nice, the underlying reasons for this are fucking horrifying because it’s further proof that some giant american companies (visa, paypal, mastercard) are the global morality police.

They have been for decades. You just aren’t going to see news stories anywhere major when what’s being banned by the morality police is something like loli or zoo content, but stuff no one wants to publicly defend are targeted first to set precedent to justify anything else they might want to ban later.

See the H.L. Mencken quote about defending scoundrels.

The more money someone makes, the few drug tests they take.

The more money someone makes, it’s also the less likely they’re working a job where people can be seriously harmed or killed by the direct, immediate effects of their behavior on the job. Jim from Sales being on smack is less likely to cause injury or death in the short term than forklift driver Klaus being on smack.

Why I said usually. Most gay men and most straight women are the exceptions.

I would assume they meant “of boobs”, but you present an interesting question of terminology. Unfortunately it begs the question, what exactly would we mean by “on boobs” in this context, so that we can question if “off boobs” is it’s opposite?

Also, boobs. The answer to boobs is usually yes.

The only rational response is to grab a can of spray paint and graffiti the door with “~355/113”

We already know from real-world AV elections that voters largely prefer to vote honestly, there’s no reason to think they would get more strategic when it gets harder to figure out the optimal strategy.

In plain AV, voting honestly is the optimal strategy - there’s no incentive to vote any other way. It’s not for SPAV. And yes, strategic voting in SPAV is harder to figure out than strategic voting in FPTP, but it’s far from impossible - basically you don’t vote for a popular candidate you support so your vote for other candidates counts for more, relying on the assumption that enough other people will vote for the popular candidate you support to allow them to win anyways.

He’s probably talking about the electoral college, and likely supports abolishing it in favor of a direct election which would mostly just shift the epmhasis away from the largest states that are close to flipping over to emphasizing a handful of the largest cities.

There’s actually a bill that’s made the rounds to several states that makes it so that once enough states (read a number equaling half plus 1 electoral votes) pass a similar law they will all switch over to assigning their electors based on the national popular vote rather than what they’re state does. Unsurprisingly, California and New York jumped on this, as did some smaller solid blue states that are willing to hitch their wagon to “whatever California wants” going forward, but it’s probably never going to actually take effect because if it could get to that point because if it could then we wouldn’t be worrying about the GOP winning another election for the foreseeable future.

Or they aren’t a fan of House apportionment. Or both. Though electoral college apportionment and house apportionment are related, so…

If they’re from the EU, I’d have a question for them: Do you feel like Germany isn’t given remotely enough power by the EU parliament, or that Malta has ridiculously too much to throw around? Because it’s literally the same problem - if you try to represent people with a fixed number of seats apportioned between territories, and you try to minimize the mean difference in voters/representative, and there are a couple of territories that just blow the curve on each end that’s what happens.

Still think merging the Dakotas and creating Montoming (merging Montana and Wyoming) is a good idea… Maybe go whole hog and if your state gets one House seat and is adjacent to a state with one House seat, you get merged to be one state from here on out. Where multiple options present, join the ones with the largest shared land border. Repeat until no examples remain, recalculate House seats and do it again if necessary. It probably won’t help California much just because of how much CA blows the population curve, but it would likely push the states with the worst population/representative ratio up by one. Should probably pull out the math and see.

Not a fan of SPAV, in part for the same reasons I’m not a fan of STAR:

1. It doesn’t eliminate strategic voting. For example, imagine you support two candidates for a multi-seat election. Under straight AV you vote for both of them because there’s literally no incentive to do otherwise. Under SPAV, you might decide that since one of those candidates is much more popular and thus a foregone conclusion to win that you should avoid voting for them so the value of your vote for the other isn’t reduced. Too many doing this can cause negative effects, like strategic voting in other methods.
2. You can’t tell me how my vote will actually be counted until every other vote is counted, because how the ballot will be measured in the end depends on every other ballot as depending on how everyone else voted your votes for some candidates may be worth less than your votes for other candidates. Straight AV doesn’t have this problem, your vote is exactly what is says on the ballot and is counted exactly as it is on the ballot. The extra math also makes it more complicated to explain to voters en masse, which is a problem with other systems that have transferable votes.

I get that the goal is apparently to make every state elect a split legislature/congressmen by making so that if any seats are even vaguely competitive the parties will essentially be forced to take turns.

I first watched it during University years, and I was very much of the camp that was doing the vicariously living through the power fantasy of Walt’s rise to power and the bitch wife and crying jessie ruining it for him.

I recently, like a year ago as a 31+ year old rewatched it again, and jesus christ what a top to bottom egoistic selfish asshole Walt is, all I did is feel sorry for Skyler and Jessie.

I think knowing where it’s going makes a big difference. Like, first time in going in blind Walt is a sympathetic for the first bit, and for most of the story is dealing with the unintended consequences of raising funds for his treatment. Knowing where it’s going it’s a lot easier to see him in a lot worse light earlier in the story.

only those companies that actually gave a shit continue to support Pride.

By which you mean only those companies that believe appearing to give a shit will be more profitable than sucking Trump’s dick continue to support Pride.