Enkrod

Fighting Oligarchy resonates greatly. But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war in favour of participating in the class war against the working class.

That is definitely something they should put waaaay more focus on. Trump is the cry for help of much of the working class, if people would believe you actually fought FOR the working people in your country, the dems would be unstoppable.

depends on your Distro, for Linux Mint it's just the Driver Manager.

To access the Driver Manager in Linux Mint, follow these steps:

1. Click on the Menu (Taskbar) in the lower-left corner of your screen.
2. Navigate to Administration.
3. Click on Driver Manager.

Once you have opened the Driver Manager, follow these steps to install the Nvidia drivers:

1. The Driver Manager will prompt you for your password. Enter your password and click on Authenticate.
2. The Driver Manager will scan your system for available drivers. Once the scanning is complete, you will see a list of available drivers for your graphics card.
3. Select the recommended Nvidia driver from the list.
4. Click on Apply Changes to start the installation process.

Then reboot.

source

For most problems you can really just google stuff like "Linux Mint Nvidia Drivers"

Haha, oops

Boeing: "All those damn regulations exist only to keep us out of the european market!"

The regulations: "Plane must fly safe"

I'm so glad I don't drink coffee...

Mjam, leave it in there for the weekend to ripen!

I remember a seldom used office coffee machine that everyone complained made the coffee taste "funny", they got the message about the necessary cleaning after maggots started crawling out. 🤢🤮

Holy shit... when the Browser itself becomes the Man-in-the-Middle attack

What you cannot turn off are the homophobic views of Brendan Eich, Braves CEO and co-founder.

Criminals absolutely do use Signal! Sometimes they even invite journalists to group chats.

There is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.

I am an atheist, which means I don't accept the proposition of the existence of a god as true.

I am a strong or gnostic atheist, which means I am convinced that the answer to the question if a god exists is knowable and that the answer is no, no god exists.

I am an anti-theist, which means I am convinced that theism (the unfounded, superstitious belief in a god) is a bad influence on the human civilisation.

I am a militant anti-theist, in that I feel I have to vigorously defend the scientific and civilizational accomplishments of my society against the ever present encroachment of superstition in the form of theism that wants to press its bad and wrong morals and ethics on my community.

Most atheists aren't anti-theists.

Edit: If I am a fanatic would entirely depend on your definition of fanaticism.

Fanaticism, a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or an obsessive enthusiasm

I am quite convinced that my position is not uncritical as I have arrived on it through critical thinking and am prepared to leave my position if shown convincing evidence or logical flaws in my position. This I would regard as very much opposed to zeal.

I also would take issue with the word obsessive, as it connotes excessive, unrelenting, unyielding and headstrong. Because I would very much love to abandon having to defend my values, I simply feel that I can't when they are under attack.

As a militant anti-theist I have informed myself about the most influential theist on earth. He was heading the most influential, superstitious, conservative, dogmatic organisation in the world and his views and speeches still shape policy in my country and the union of countries it exists in. Where I have to suffer under or combat every policy idea the people influenced by him impose on me, as I hold views diametrically opposed to his. Keeping myself and those around me informed about the hollowness of the public image of these enemies of modernity is one of the few ways to fight back against theist feel-good propaganda.

How you think I could have done otherwise is beyond me.

It seems to me like saying people should ignore bad actors instead of actively opposing them.

The catholic church... any organized religion really is a force for conservatism, tradition, dogmatism and superstition.

You will NEVER see a pope who aligns with modern, secular, humanist morals and ethics, because such a person would never rise to power in a monarchical, absolutist structure build on hierarchy, dogmatism and obedience.

In my opinion, no pope will ever be not an asshole.

But you can absolutely be a HUGE asshole like Joseph Alois Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) (Fuck the Motherfucker), or you can be a somewhat less bad asshole like Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis). But even if this one produces less shit than the other, it's still a huge asshole producing lots of shit.

So please don't underestimate the amount of shit this asshole produced!

Francis scored points in the Evangelical camp not only by dispensing with traditional Catholic pomp (such as the red velvet shoes), but also by implementing the Evangelicals' political agenda. Hardly any other pope has supported the worldwide campaigns against abortion as massively as he has, and hardly any pope has done so little against the massive attacks on gays, lesbians and trans people from within his own ranks. When, for example, the Nigerian Bishops' Conference called for even harsher punishments for homosexuals, no substantial criticism was heard from Rome. All in all, Francis was not an “advocate of humanity”, but rather a sympathetic, smiling face that concealed a deeply inhuman ideology. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

source

Instead of clearly naming the aggressor, Francis called on Ukraine to “show the white flag” as an expression of willingness to negotiate - a call that was understood in Kiev as an invitation to surrender. The fact that he repeatedly avoided directly naming Vladimir Putin as the person responsible for the suffering, but instead spoke of a “drama on both sides”, called his moral judgment into question and damaged his credibility as an advocate for peace and justice.

source

His response to the islamic attacks on Charlie Hebdo:

“If a dear friend speaks badly of my mother, he can expect a punch, and that's normal. [...] You shouldn't provoke the faith of others.”

His position towards abortion:

“like hiring a contract killer to solve a problem”

That entirely depends on the other parties.

As long as they have less than 50% the other parties could (in theory) band together against them and create a coalition government.

The problem arises when that coalition has to become more diverse. As you can imagine the populist right would rather work together with the far right than with the populist left, so the coalition becomes shaky, paralyzed because they cannot come to agreements. The common denominator will be so small that basically nothing gets done, and the oppositional party will profit from that.

Shaky coalition governments can lead to government breakups and snap elections which in combination with the resulting loss of trust and inability to do anything of the government will likely lead to an even stronger opposition and even more shaky governments or right out majority for the plurality party.

Also, the leader of the opposition usually chairs important committees like the Budget Committee, the opposition also gets important roles in the committees for Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs and Defense. It also gets priority in debates, which is usually a good thing, since this works as a check and balance to hold government accountable, but when this role is in the hands of populists, they will certainly use it to further their own narrative.