Yea but it’s inefficient. USB-A has a significantly lower transfer rate than USB-C so it’ll bottleneck

Objectively disgusting. How can one connector be so chunky while still being asymmetric?

a slave-master dynamic

please don’t use that term, every time i see it i immediately verge on orgasming. you’ve already made me ruin 2 undergarments today. i have a serious bdsm kink and this is not funny.

That sounds like a terrible decision to make considering 50% of Israelis live in the 30 most populated cities, cities which are all clustered together and very bombable… then again, I don’t think jets from the late 70s would fare well against Israel’s very modern air defenses. An ancient F-14 or a MiG-29 would probably spontaneously collapse at the sight of a Patriot SAM operated by Israel.

It’s a Br*tish news article so they actually do pay about that much for insulin, if they pay at all.

I agree but it could be worse (Pop!_OS)

Maybe access to connected devices (e.g. your computer components or the phone you have plugged in to your computer)

on y office maybe? that could be interpreted as “we work there” with very poor grammar

You don’t like Floorp?

Paywalled article

I can’t imagine most Nvidia employees don’t make enough to become millionaires within like 5-10 years if they aren’t already. Their entry-level software engineering positions have a base pay of $147K and total compensation of $180K. The lowest paying level of senior engineers gets more like $300K… Even the ones who leave before then are highly likely to get a job with comparable pay or benefits considering they have Nvidia on their resumé.

Now, tens-of-millions-aires, I don’t think most employees get there.

I like polymorphism. Having to have a hundred differently named functions or structs or something that do the same thing but slightly differently in Rust is annoying as hell. Especially with all the underscores you have to type… If Rust were more functional though it’d make that problem go away pretty quickly.

Surely you must notice that “Modern American Liberalism” and “Liberalism” are two separate terms? “Liberal” can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you’re quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term “liberal” is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it’s still used in the common/typical/“original” sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).

And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. “Conservative” is a significantly more broad term than “liberal” and it’s impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn’t generally a perfect match. But there does exist “conservative liberalism”, which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they’re a bit more… fascist.

Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.

Also calling modern American liberalism “socialism”, even “democratic socialism”, is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can’t just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.

For the most part, “lib” is synonymous with “so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate”, i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.

“Liberal” isn’t only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. “Liberal” is used to mean someone who believes in “free-market” capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It’s pretty much synonymous with right-wing “libertarian” ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it’s still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or “fundamental rights” contexts though.

Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered “social liberalism” or even “modern American liberalism”, which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a “free market” will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the “left” ideology. In a full political view though, it isn’t leftism.

The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word “progressive” was starting to be seen as “radical” (and therefore negative). Progressives started using “liberal” instead, and it became a way to say “I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount”. When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.

9 years old? That’s practically brand new!