Hey, anybody remember the scandal around Dubya’s Texas Air National Guard record? Somebody leaked a document to Dan Rather, and the Bush campaign even acknowledged that the information in it was 100% accurate. But it wasn’t the original document. Forensic analysis showed that it had been re-created in MS Word.

Then, the Bushies made it all about the forgery, which cost Rather his job, and sent the damaging information about Bush down the memory hole.

Remember that? I’m not saying that the DonOld’s campaign is pulling that trick, but IRAN IRAN IRAN!!!1!

So has he been caught having sexual relations with one of his players yet?

How about a government-sponsored, non-profit authentication service? That is, it should be impossible to get a loan, open a line of credit, or anything else in somebody’s name, without the lending institution verifying that it’s actually on behalf of the named individual. Eliminate the security-through-obscurity technique of using bits of easily-leaked personal information as a poor substitute for actual authentication.

I mean, (as a comparative example) I have to go through an OAuth2 consent dialog to connect a third-party app to my email account, yet somebody can saddle me with huge debts based on knowing a 9-digit number that just about everybody knows? It’s the system that’s broken, tightening up the laws on PII is just a band-aid.

Paved roads don’t just naturally occur, though. That lifestyle is already an insane prospect, unsustainabke but for the large tax subsidy required to enable it.

I live in the U.S. That comment is 100% true, no matter where one lives.

I would just like to point out that this is an example of the tried-and-true rhetorical technique of shrugging off issues with a dismissive “that’s not new.” We see politicians and spokespersons do it all the time, because, maddeningly, it works.

But, it doesn’t actually matter whether it’s new, does it? Couple things: The Heritage Foundation has put out a similar document every election cycle for decades, but the contents have changed; this iteration could be (is!) much, much worse. Even if Heritage had been putting out the same plan all along, and we didn’t object then, well, we can still object now. We don’t have to keep making the same mistakes in the future just because we made them in the past.

Lots of people do want a king, or at least, a king in the sense of an embodiment and personification of the nation. Abstract thinking is hard, most of us do it as little as possible, and some people can’t do it at all, so they can’t conceptualize a thing like “the state.” They need a figurehead to relate to, like the king in a monarchical system. When you look at the debate through that lens, it makes sense why they’d not want Biden/their nation to appear weak and disjointed.

As an aside, I think that combining the head of government and head of state in the office of President is the worst mistake in the Constitution.

Oof, yes, we need opponents for this guy who understand the fundamentals of how he and his rhetoric work. The better way to deal with him is to flip the frame. Specifically, in the opening statement, Biden needed to call out very explicitly that Trump was going to lie constantly, and furthermore, point out that you can recognize his lies when he says “best, strongest, biggest, greatest.” That little bit of verbal jiu jitsu would’ve ensured that it was no longer Biden calling out the lies, but the viewers’ own ears, and by bringing them to conscious attention, draining the power of those statements. (Trump spews lies and nonsense that don’t parse analytically, like that alphabet-soup closing statement, but he’s really aiming his words at the subconscious mind.)

It’s an old joke. Here’s on permutation of it: McGregor the Pier Builder

Tell that to MacGregor the church-builder.

It is, and always has been, an option. Perhaps not an easy one, but the two-party duopoly has brought us here to the brink of democratic collapse.

But what gets me is being told that the other guy will be so much worse for Palestine, when it’s not entirely clear that there will even be a Palestine by inauguration day.

I think—and this is fucking mental, I know—that we should all vote for a President that’s not supporting genocide.

This is madness, but since this is a hobby project and not a production server, there is a way:

• Shrink the filesystems on the existing disks to free up as much space as possible, and shrink their partitions.
• Add a new partition to each of the three disks, and make a RAID5 volume from those partitions.
• Move as many files as possible to the new RAID5 volume to free up space in the old filesystems.
• Shrink the old filesystems/partitions again.
• Expand each RAID component partition one at a time by removing it from the array, resizing it into the empty space, and re-adding it to the array, giving plenty of time for the array to rebuild.
• Move files, shrink the old partitions, and expand the new array partitions as many times as needed until all the files are moved.

This could take several days to accomplish, because of the RAID5 rebuild times. The less free space, the more iterations and the longer it will take.