Right, but they are visibly are. Russ Vought (project 2025) is the Office of Management and Budget director. He drafted the executive orders months ago that would lead to exactly this. Part of Project 2025

Other members in Trumps cabinet from Project 2025:

- Tom Homan (Border Czar)

- Brendan Carr (FCC)

- John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)

> The rest of your post is just hysteria so I won't comment on that.

Maybe don't accuse others of hysteria while you spout that Democrats are the ones coordinating every independent attorney and judge to come after Trump.

> In every instance, he has said he is not affiliated with it and doesn't support it

You sound like you were born yesterday. If you can't imagine why a politician would say one thing and do the other, I really can't help you. You're maliciously ignorant.

You actually provided more details here than he did, so I guess that's not true.

>> Suffice it to say, I ended up traveling for most of the year, all the while having to handle various abusers and stalkers who harassed and attacked me and my family (and continue to do so).

If anything, I am more doubtful you had stalkers since you are also in this thread saying this[1]. What an unsympathetic reply. You certainly don't come off like you're aware of the stress and fear that can bring if your answer to other people being stalked is "rethink your life choices."

> Sounds to me like you just need to take a break from the internet friend. If you're that high profile that you're getting hit over and over, maybe you need to rethink your life choices. If it bothers you that much especially.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43038512

Which is also not measurable and manipulates the reader. I don't see the readers comment as flamebait. Just because misinformation comes from right-wing media and people have eyes to see that and call it out doesn't make it flamebait. What should we call it? An unknown amount of totally apolitical misinformation from [insert party here]?

> It's still an euphemism designed to manipulate the listener, and is something that is impossible to prove factually

As are most arguments when we use phrases like "a lot", "similar to", etc. If you dismiss things based on such broad criteria, I am puzzled by your comment history. You have told users they are bad and support Tyranny[1], said it's malicious to support infrastructure spending[2], and called Snowden a narcissist (which proves he had no altruistic motives?)[3].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41434473 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375616 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406143

These are not emotional statements supported by an argument, these are arguments supported by emotional pleas.

And a simple cmd+f shows "Emotional plea" is a phrase you do not use sparingly either. You are using this word very broadly. If you cannot hold yourself to the same standards you hold other users, you aren't debating in good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41375602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41406195 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41206808

You have obviously constructed a belief system that makes it impossible to engage with things you disagree with while allowing yourself to lash out at users however you see fit and bring up whatever politics suits you.

> Copy-pasting journal article links is not an argument

An argument is not a theoretical bottle exercise for one to wordsmith their way towards not engaging with the facts. In the real world, we have eyes.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241258026?i...

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-doze...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9637323/

The term "flamebait" is also an emotional plea, but we trust adults to use their brain and decide how to report that in good faith.

"Biblical Flood" is a euphemism indicating "a lot of" misinformation (which is a fact [1]) and anyone not being willfully obtuse could interpret what the commenter meant. but I suppose it's easier to immediately dismiss that very true statement than engage with it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9114791/

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotlin/comments/mh2z5u/comment/gt2n...

What makes Kotlin more expressive? I understand it has some functional features but I've never seen anything dramatically flexible.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/all-the-texts-fox-ne...

No, there wasn't.

That was not misinformation. The idea that Ivermectin was helpful in dealing with CoVID was determined from a meta analysis that included a fake study that nobody can confirm happened and even used dead people. It was pushed by grifting doctors who sell Ivermectin.

Yes, if you have parasites and take an anti-parasite drug you're gonna feel better, whether you have CoVID or not.

> the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID

It halted it as much as it could considering 30% of people didn't complete vaccination. I finished and have had every booster and never got CoVID despite all of my family members getting it (who refused to get vaccinated).

You can install at the link below, and then making a project is just `dotnet new console` and run with `dotnet run`

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/install/linux

> intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"

I think it just crumbles under light scrutiny. People have higher income for all kinds of observable reasons that don't have to do with intelligence. I have higher income than other employees at the same level just based on where I live.

Intelligence is something that is defined by academics. Surprise surprise that it it measures how people perform in a narrow set of academic skills.

I don't think it's appropriate to measure intelligence as a correlation between the few things a statistician cares about, personally. It would be a naively meritocratic view to think performing well at the highest paying jobs is a decent measure for intelligence.

How does one find a definition of intelligence that allows us to correlate it to anything? My understanding is an IQ is defined and intelligence is not.

Bait aside, nobody calls you homophobic for asking good faith questions about how the schools budget is spent. But it would be absurd to imply the 12 hours a year kids are taught about sexuality is somehow derailing the entire curriculum. When talking about revamping education, only people that have fully drank Kool aid would think "it's because all of that money is used to turn my kids gay".

There will always be a demand for playing older games, hence emulators like this.

To me, the context is the thing I just did. I can't say I'm particularly confused with toasts. Without them, I find myself looking for confirmation on page more often.

Also to the user, they happen instantaneously. Who cares if the fade-in is slow in computer time?