100UL (Unleaded avgas) has finally been approved for spark-ignition aviation engines just in the past couple years.

Manufacturers have finally gotten approval to build/retrofit popular small aircraft with compression-ignition engines. These can burn Jet-A in a diesel cycle instead of 100LL. Jet-A is more energy dense than 100LL, and it is cheaper.

We’re finally in a regulatory position where the GA fleet can actually transition to unleaded fuels.

Robin Hood (Prince of Thieves, Men in Tights, etc.)

V for Vendetta.

Fight Club.

The Patriot

Braveheart

The ability to turn water into whiskey.

Didn’t have any, but my husband put in a word for me and I got hired.

Networking.

If it was nepotism, you would have said:

Didn’t have any, but my husband was the hiring manager, and put me on the payroll anyway.

My father and my grandmother (who lives with us, in the USA) are PRC Citizens with legal US permanent residency.

“Permanent” residency just means there is not currently a specific intent to revoke their status. It does not mean that they are immune from the immigration witch-hunt currently sweeping the US. More than a few “permanent residents” have been deported, most for simply pissing off someone empowered to use deportation in retaliation.

But I don’t think they are looking at some anonymous Lemmy account, right?

Your account is currently “anonymous”. But everything you post is online, and documented forever. What happens 6 months down the road, when your anonymity is pierced, and your name is permanently tied to your past acts? Have you said or done anything that would lead the head narcissist-in-charge to think you don’t like him?

My advice would be to focus your activist energy on long-term, local issues. Lobby for public transportation, school funding, homeless shelters, victim assistance, bike paths, free clinics, legal aid, Habitat for Humanity, or any of a thousand other worthy causes with broad, positive effects for the community. You don’t have to keep your head down, just stick it out where it will do the most good. We don’t need more evidence of the current regime’s malfeasance; we do need good people focused on what happens after they are out of office.

I totally the words

The whole thing!

Others have mentioned the varying thickness of the atmosphere that the sunlight has to pass through, but cloud cover is the more important factor. The map you are looking at seems to include cloud cover in its calculations.

Bang bang, shoot shoot.

The “brain trust” thinks Europe is a bunch of freeloaders, reliant on the US for their security, but disgusted at how the US provides it. The Greenland/Canada thing is intended to force Europe to build up its militaries.

It is also serving as a distraction to the shooting war they are trying to start in Central and South America.

I don’t know what should be done, but I’m pretty sure whatever it is will involve a Guy Fawkes mask and a green newsboy hat.

https://jontic.com/two-ais-realize-theyre-talking-to-each-other-and-switch-to-a-secret-language/

Prior to the two AIs switching languages, this was two machines using “voice” to convey data.

Technically, they weren’t using “Internet Protocol” over that voice link.

https://jontic.com/two-ais-realize-theyre-talking-to-each-other-and-switch-to-a-secret-language/

Technically, it’s not internet protocol over voice, but the two AIs are initially using voice to convey (meta) data.

I never got beyond proof of concept, and definitely didn’t keep any documentation.

I used voip.ms as a VPN trunk provider. They handled the incoming and outgoing calls to/from the PSTN, connecting them to my server.

If you’re not familiar with Tasker, I wholeheartedly endorse it. I thought it was a little unintuitive at first, but I use it for all kinds of things now.

I had a setup with a remote Asterisk server, and a Tasker app on my phone.

If I pressed a button on the phone, it placed a call to the Asterisk server, which dumped the call into a recorded conference room.

That was simple enough. The fun part happened next. The cops are always shown telling stopped subjects to stop recording and hang up phones. They’ll take the phone out of your hand, and attempt to delete recordings. I wanted to address that.

I worked out a script on the Asterisk server where if the phone hung up, it would immediately dial back, and dump the call right back in the recorded conference room. Tasker on the phone would silently answer a call from that number.

That was about as far as I got. I had planned on some way of the asterisk server dialing a contact list and adding them to the conference.

This, exactly.

Boomers grew up with a 91% top-tier tax rate.

Nobody ever paid that rate; anyone who was close to that line found some tax deductible way of spending their excess. That “tax deductible way of spending” was, ultimately, someone else’s paycheck.

Without that punitively-high top tier, there is no need for them to actually spend their excess income. They invest it, creating a debt owed back to them.

We tolerate this horseshit out of fear that “they’ll go away, and take the jobs with them”. Which won’t happen: When we restore our 91% top-tier tax rate, the rest of the world will follow.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

If you don’t defend that speech

Just because something is spoken does not make it speech. The spoken word can, indeed, be “violence”.

You’ve described “disturbing the peace” (“megaphone”, “yelling”). You’ve described “harassment” (Every day for years while the kids get on and off the bus). You’ve described “assault”. (causing stress and great anxiety; harming).

The actual “speech” you’ve described, you have explicitly defined as insufficient to get him arrested, so I would have to defend his right to say it.

But in the context you’ve provided for him, the totality of his actions rise to the level of “violence”, and nothing I’ve said demands tolerance for that.

In a public forum that he hosts for himself? The “disturbing the peace” charge falls away. Non-vulgar comments about what he finds enjoyable and the content of his dreams, that don’t rise to the level of harassment? The stress, anxiety, and harm you described didn’t come from his speech, but from his harassment while disturbing the peace: Since his statements are no longer harassment or disturbing the peace, the “assault” goes away as well.

Now, he’s speaking. And now that this is speech, I would invite you to join me in speaking back to him, even as I caution you not to censor him.

We certainly do draw lines in different places. You are calling for the violent eradication of certain people. We agree those people are despicable. We can even agree the world would be a better place without them. But, I’m going to stand between you and them, and tell you not to become them.

When they cross the line from speech to violence and actually try to “silence” others, we will, of course, defend those others. We don’t need the paradox to do that; we don’t need to become fascists ourselves to identify and defend the victims.

Hatred must be stamped out,

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend - to the death - your right to say it. The same goes for anyone you would silence or eradicate.

You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself, and I don’t want to live in a fascist state.

because we have no other choice except to to let them win and then die.

No, that’s untrue. We do, indeed, have a choice.

For the nazis to thrive, society has to value the ability to eradicate others. We have to accept the idea that we may very well be the ones in the wrong. Probably not today, but quite possibly tomorrow. The Nazi does not value such introspection. They cannot consider a world in which they could ever be the bad guys. Our willingness to annihilate a perceived threat must always be tempered with the humility that we are not an omniscient, objective source of truth. We can, indeed, be the baddies.

The delineation always needs to be at the point of eradicating “others”. That always needs to be a trait of “them” and never of “us”. Our mindset must always be “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That statement is addressed to a hateful speaker, but that speaker is not the intended audience. The intended audience is the one who would try to stop someone from speaking. The message is “We collectively defend even the people we hate.”

The intolerance paradox is an explanation of fascism, not a rebuttal.

It demonstrates the motivation: destroy those who pose a danger to our way of life. It allows us a justification to do to others exactly what we accuse them of doing to us.

We’re coming for the Nazis today, and nobody is stopping us. Who are we going after tomorrow?