explainplease

13 ms·

91.
by explainplease 8y ago
If one defines "election security" as "ensuring that each voter is registered, is alive and present, votes only once, and votes only in the correct location," then obviously requiring voters to legally identify themselve
92.
by explainplease 8y ago
> Please follow the guidelines and respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I'm saying, which is on fact trying to understand the issue, not in fact blaming someone. There's no reason to be rude or accusatory. I
93.
by explainplease 8y ago
Elections are not national defense. State and local governments have been handling their own elections since before the country was founded. This is a good thing , because it keeps elections close to the people, accountable to the people.
94.
by explainplease 8y ago
> From my perspective, democrats are working to improve election security while republicans are not. Does voter ID improve election security? Which party opposes voter ID laws?
95.
by explainplease 8y ago
Do you hear yourself? You said to him: > 23 seconds is abnormal, not the experience of most users, and therefore likely either not consistent for you (maybe your WiFi connection dropped) or due to some wierd configuration on your end. A
96.
by explainplease 8y ago
Sure, that makes sense for your business, because it saved money. For me, personally, I don't want spend time getting used to software that is likely to be taken away from me (i.e. forced obsolescence). That is a very frustrating exp
97.
by explainplease 8y ago
Have you tried Magit?
98.
by explainplease 8y ago
> the ability to seamlessly search and filter branches by just typing the way most IDE's implement search for symbols or files. Magit does this in Emacs, especially when used with Helm.
99.
by explainplease 8y ago
I wish Mozilla would give some kind of guarantee that they won't drop the feature, otherwise I don't feel like investing time into building a workflow around it is worthwhile. And it's sad that this is even an issue.
100.
by explainplease 8y ago
His first comment was insightful and made the point with a poignant analogy. It was concise and direct. It was far more valuable than the "informative" one.
101.
by explainplease 8y ago
Save the video's audio as a local file if you want to keep using it. Any YouTube video is bound to disappear without warning at any time.
102.
by explainplease 8y ago
Also see: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chrome/2lN8hckg...
103.
Google removes volume control from Chrome's HTML5 video player(reddit.com)
4 points by explainplease 8y ago|1 comments
104.
by explainplease 8y ago
And this is how that creator is reacting to Linux's merging their CoC based on the CC: http://archive.is/6AyZy
105.
by explainplease 8y ago
Perhaps http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907 has come to pass.
106.
by explainplease 8y ago
> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person." Let's look at a good source: Webster: 1. "According to the primary and natura
107.
by explainplease 8y ago
http://archive.is/6AyZy
108.
by explainplease 8y ago
> I think the definition of "literally" as its opposite is already included in the OED. Literally now literally means figuratively. No, it doesn't. Some words change meaning over time, as language naturally changes. That i
109.
by explainplease 8y ago
Yep. I was reluctant to try it for this very reason. I just started using it recently, and started liking it. Now I realize that, of course, I shouldn't have bothered. If only I could easily use something like notmuch/isync on
110.
by explainplease 8y ago
That sounds great! But if Mozilla follows the pattern they have set, they will discontinue that extension, just like they dumped Tab Groups, etc. So why should users invest in using it and building workflows around it, when it's prob
111.
by explainplease 8y ago
I imagine all the spooks and blackhats around the world utter a hearty chortle whenever they see someone cite that on the Internet. All they have to do for plausible deniability is plant a few obvious noob mistakes and, boom: that couldn&#
112.
by explainplease 8y ago
Looking at https://www.quetree.com/branchview/v67n , the only difference from a typical, threaded forum appears to be the "Q" or "A" label on each post. Am I missing something?
113.
by explainplease 8y ago
This "intellectual interest" garbage is a farce. People like us, who live in a free country, have the luxury of bantering about intellectual interests. How easy it is for you to sit comfortably and pooh-pooh criticism of your em
114.
by explainplease 8y ago
Without a doubt the worst bullshit I've ever seen from dang. So tell us, Dan, how would one criticize the Chinese government for imprisoning dissidents and genocide, while staying within your guidelines? How must one couch it to pass
115.
by explainplease 8y ago
Your comment was nothing more than ignorant, content-free bigotry and gross generalization against Christians. How many Christian scientists would laugh at your characterization of their beliefs.
116.
by explainplease 8y ago
You must not have spoken with very many creationists.
117.
by explainplease 8y ago
The problem with excluding religion is that it's relevant. Imagine excluding any other branch of philosophy (science, math, photography, morality, logic), and the effect it would have on conversation. It would make no sense, and it w
118.
by explainplease 8y ago
There are a few problems with your request. One, it's stated vaguely. What would qualify? Which religion, and which society? You would likely claim that there was some society somewhere which already had such a standard, and that th
119.
by explainplease 8y ago
Rational arguments are not derived from gonvaled; gonvaled is built around existing rational arguments - to the point of misappropriating them.
120.
by explainplease 8y ago
I recommend looking at helm-org-rifle and org-board.

More ›