But it’s not really the same kind of calculation as the car accident though. It’d be impossible to know if anyone using it ever had died from doing so, so impossible to compare the statistics and the concern is about whether the act of being teleported constitutes dying so depending on the answer to that the odds are either 100% or 0 (unless they have some kind of safety issue with more traditional, visible death or injury that bumps that up to something above 0% but below 100).
It’s always pretty hard to forget “satansmaggotycumfart”. I don’t really remember much of what they post but the name is always a trip.
I come from a country using the more traditional form of the “Westminster” system of government that the US’ system is also based upon but which from the outset made significant departures from. Because your use of the term “opposition leader” I’m going to hazard a guess you might be from another Westminster Style parliamentary democracy nation as well. If that’s the case I think what’s happening here is that you’re expecting a “leader of the opposition”, a singular individual officially holding that specific title, like we have in Westminster style Parliamentary systems. The US works a bit differently, and no such role exists. Likely the reason you remembered a person occupying this role in the past is because you were probably seeing press coverage of the opposition party’s official presidential candidate, which would look like a leader of the opposition to us but there’s a big difference because they do a different job.
In the US system the elected representatives of both chambers of their bicameral system, which over there is referred to as “congress” rather than “parliament” as in many Commonwealth countries, are voted in by local electoral processes like in Westminster systems, however unlike in the Westminster system, the ‘executive branch’ which is the branch of government that is headed by the office of, ‘president’ is voted in by an entirely separate process and the president themselves aren’t a member of the congress; they’re not in the House of Representatives or the Senate and they also don’t have to face question time by them either. When the president loses an election or serves out their maximum term limits, they tend to fade from media attention because they don’t have any real job anymore in the party. In a Westminster system, a Prime Minister has a double job, they got their seat in parliament and thus eligibility for their Prime Minister role by winning an election to be the elected representative of a small local area within the nation they govern at the same time as their party’s officially chosen leader which the party gave them through internal decision making. This means when their party is in power their job is to be both a local representative and a prime minister and when their party is out of government, their job is to continue to be that local representative (unless that local area got sick of them and also voted them out) AND the official leader of the “shadow” cabinet. In that role as leader of the opposition they have to represent the party in front of the media and respond to the actions of the government of the day and criticise and challenge them. They’re a constant face as they try to either lead the party BACK in to power they lost or until the party has a vote internally and decides that the public probably won’t vote for them while they continue to have their current leader and they decide to pick a different one.
In the US system parties have leaders in each of their two chambers of congress, one for the Senate and one for the House of Representatives so that’s why if you ask your question as you’ve phrased it, some people might answer you with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries who are the opposition or “Minority” leaders in both the Senate and House of Representatives respectively right now, both of them from the Democratic party which does not currently hold majority in either chamber hence “minority” leaders. This can get pretty confusing if you’re used to the Westminster system because in the US, the election of their president and the election of members of their congress (which would be our parliament) are entirely separate elections and the process by which one becomes a one of two leaders in Congress on behalf of a party or by which one becomes a party’s official presidential nominee are different and so you have no opposition leader or 3 depending on what you decide the equivalent of the opposition leader is.
So finally, the bit that hopefully explains why it seemed like before you had a more known face as a leader of the opposition. When they pick candidates for Presidential elections, as opposed to Congress, major parties in the US have since the 70s done this via a process of lots of separate local elections around the country known as the ‘primaries’ run by the parties themselves (which are private organisations) with votes cast by members of the public who’ve chosen to register with the party. It’s a very long winded process but eventually this leads to an additional voting contest where the people voting are party insiders that are theoretically bound to vote in a way that lines up with the results of those earlier contests. This happens on the year of a presidential election so until then they don’t officially have a nominee. Likely in the past there would have been a lot of coverage of a nominee once they became an official nominee so those could well be the people you were thinking of as opposition leaders before. There’s usually also pretty strong favourites before someone is officially announced as a nominee including former presidential race losers sometimes as happened with Trump and so there’s usually some faces that kinda looks like they’re probably likely to be the next presidential nominee for their party before this process and also during the long months of primaries before the official final vote that picks a winner. If your question was why isn’t anyone seemingly strongly emergent from your perspective this time around well as an outsider I’m less well placed to know the answer but I would suspect that the way things shook out last time with them having to dump Biden at the last minute and inserting Harris outside of the whole primaries process and then her losing has left them in a bit of a shambles and that messy loss combined with a lot of ill will over what seemed to be a concerted effort by party insiders back in 2016 to rig the process of selecting their nominee and the fact that they’re in minority in both chambers of congress might have made the party a more fractured entity of late with less candidates that have strong public support and the blessing of the powerful party insiders, that are clearly raising their heads just yet. But this last bit I’m really much less informed about, I’m mostly just focusing on the US electoral mechanics because they seem so weird when you’re used to the Westminster system.
I should probably learn how you link all this stuff up, probably not doing myself a lot of favours ignoring it.
Is the AI vision local?
This could come in pretty handy for me. What’s he edit on that does this?
And not even the final one
Oh yeh that looked cool I was pretty pumped about that. Is it not so good after all?
He was, undoubtedly. But in my memory and my conception of the two characters, their interactions were always like this . With Miss Piggy the angry diva or upset girlfriend to Kermit having a chuckle. It might actually have been that that happened maybe a couple of times ever but as a little kid you don’t have the best grasp of nuance so that’s the impression it formed. I also had obviously a lot less appreciation for characters having roles and functions so even though that exchange was actually really funny and very memorable since I still remember it even today, as a child I only take it on a very literal level, so Miss Piggy isn’t a diva character that creates funny situations by being quick to anger and not tolerating anything she considers beneath her, instead she’s “mean” or “fussy” you know? Obviously different as a grown up, but it made me not like the character as a kiddo.
As a kid I always hated Miss Piggie since she as sort of the humourless foil to Kermit but I think I can appreciate porcine Yoda a bit more now if only for the voice.
Yeh he always seemed rock and roll!
If the username doesn’t have to be unique, couldn’t you impersonate people?
MSN Messenger for the win!
But see, doesn’t that just mean it’s a really good operating system? Not necessarily “fun”? I don’t know if I’m getting my point across here. Think of a pair of shoes, there is much variation of form and design intent and pricing and capability but nevertheless they’re pretty much all there to facilitate the task of walking. You could get a really bad pair of shoes that constantly dig holes in to your foot and fall to pieces and make walking a huge chore. Maybe some day someone will make a pair that somehow force you stop and look at billboards and ad displays, those would be your windows shoes. You could also get a great pair, that feels so comfortable you could forget you’re even wearing them, they look great and they were a fantastic price and they never worsen your ability to perform the task of walking. They might even be such good shoes that they’re suitable for all sorts of walking adjacent tasks like running as well, perhaps you’ll enjoy running, again though what’s fun there? Running? Or having shoes that don’t make running difficult? I’d assume the former. That’s what I tend to wonder about with the folks who talk about how much fun Linux is. I’m sure the various distros are really great operating systems that work way better than a lot of other options and don’t have the same perverse incentives that keep those other options so consistently poor and for all those reasons it’s a great choice but who’s looking at operating systems thinking “this is going to be fun”? I’d love to have that same capacity to be so amused by it but it’s hard to see it as anything other than a functional piece of equipment. I certainly will have preferences and appreciation for good equipment but I wouldn’t think of it as fun. I have a similar reaction to people that say they like it because they want to tinker or “you can do anything you want with it”, I don’t want to yuk anyone’s yum but, what would you even be trying to do with it?
I’m always somewhat confused by this, I haven’t tried Linux since 2009 so maybe I just need to try it some more to appreciate what people mean by thks. I’d say it was “fun” in so much as it was nice to have a challenge for a little while but that was more sort of incidental to it facilitating my computer being a useful machine for me. In terms of it being a better operating system that does it’s job efficiently without problems, shouldn’t it be sort of… Invisible then? Like how can it be fun? I use my computer to do stuff so for me it’s sort of like an operating system is only noticeable to the extent that it is bad and if it isn’t bad I won’t really be aware of it.
Sounds like it’s still quite a worry, maybe she’s safe from malicious software but sounds very prone to being mislead in to doing things by bad actors through her computer.
Do you think they can be trusted not to take some sort of action that might take the whole situation and process out of OP’s control have a lot of unintended consequences? I feel like one’s plea that they not act upon it has a lot of risk of being overruled, or ‘act’ having some multitude of interpretations. Your suggestion makes some sense in terms of trying to get ahead of thing in case they spiral out of control for some other reason but it could result in these 3rd parties making things so much worse for everyone even if he has no ill will from the outset.
Is it excessive worship that was the issue? I thought the biblical God was fine with all manner of excess of worship as long as it wasn’t of any other god.