It's possible some folks have thin skin.

Deontology judges actions based on rules and principles

Consequentialism judges actions based on the consequences

What would you call it when the morality of the action depends on the income level of the victim?

You should feel free to explore / abuse all options :)

https://github.com/JacKeTUs/linux-steering-wheels

Hopefully vr headset support will get better

Wouldn't it be more efficient to run direct DC appliances?

We have a building on our farm without power and it'd be ideal to be able to charge batteries and run lights at night

It seems to me that we would have to upsize batteries in order to make up for the loss in converting to AC

The trouble I'm having is if they were leaving under engine power alone, with such fast current, why was the ground tackle not ready to be deployed?

We ran a much (much) smaller vessel with an unreliable engine and often pre-prepared our anchor before getting into port

This is because of how the wood around it is framed to provide support to the wall above

That should get you within 90%+ use cases

Another interesting note, in the early days of spotify, the app would saturate your upload bandwidth while using it. Given their close ties to utorrent, I always assumed that's how they were affording the bandwidth as well.

Pretty brilliant way to bootstrap I guess; they didn't have to pay for bandwidth or content until they already had contracts in place

You don't have to, those contracts are optional. They will threaten to not represent you, but if you are a well qualified buyer, this is something you can force without much risk.

The more well qualified buyers refuse, the more normalized working for clients without contracts will be

So yes, technically not a LAN game, but in practical terms any modern LAN party also probably has internet. It's not the hurdle it used to be.

Seems like gender technically wouldnt be a blocker, was that a product choice, or a marketing choice?

Use map settings are the only thing keeping sc2 alive right now.

The game is now free to play which attracted a bunch of players who don't really know how to play melee

In 1954 John Marshall Harlan II lapsed in November of an Election year. That's probably the precedent you're looking for. The reason you probably didn't include him is because the reason he lapsed and was re-done in the next session of congress was because there was no time, and he was the first nominee to be questioned in front of the senate. So despite the session lapsing, he was again nominated, accepted as a nominee and eventually voted on.

The example before that is Pierce Butler, who again was nominated in November (21st, not an election year), and they couldn't make it before the legislative session ended. Similar to John Marshal Harlan, he was again nominated in December, and voted on in the same month.

The reality is we have to go past William B Hornblower in 1893, and past Stanley Matthews in 1881, all the way to 1866 with Henry Stanbery to find our last instance of a nominee who was lapsed, but not voted on. To skirt their responsibility to vote they passed the Judicial Circuits Act to reduce the number of justices to 7, denying Jackson his right of an appointment.

Looking back to modern day, none of these fit the Garland example.

- Garland was nominated in March, not at all at risk of missing the legislative session

- No Senate has ever decided to skirt it's responsibility by refusing to acknowledge the nominee.

- Garland was a moderate, and likely would have been confirmed. He was previously confirmed to the court of appeals in 1997 by a vote of 76-23.

- There is no precedent for refusing to vote on a nominee in an election year. There have been 7 election year nominations since the civil war, and all 7 were confirmed (only one without a vote)

My original claim was that they are hypocrites, and they are. Amy's nomination was done in an election year, in September before the election.

> The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. - McConnell (2016)

> I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first time, you can say Lindsey Graham said "let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination" - Lindsey Graham (2016)

> "I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg." - Lindsey Graham (2020)

----

> look at the Nixon years. Democrats blocking everything until they got nominees they truly approved of.

Untrue, Democrats voted on all 6 of Nixon's nominees, and only 2 were rejected. This is precisely what I mean, even when congress doesn't agree with the president their responsibility is to call the vote, and show the disagreements in the vote.

> Notice that whenever there was an A1-A2 party split, especially when a nomination was approaching an election, either the nomination failed, or it didn't succeed until the lame duck (if the president's party won re-election).

Feel free to share an example.