Maybe someone that expresses a little authentic human joy is exactly what the American public needs right now.

As someone that has never had soda my entire life (my parents were normal soda-drinking people, I'm just weird and was never interested in trying it), maybe I don't know what I'm missing out on, but water is soooo gooood. It's so refreshing and delicious if you're thirsty. I don't comprehend why these drinks even exist.

If you live almost anywhere in America or another developed nation, you get dirt-cheap clean water delivered right to your home constantly, and it's so great. Why does anyone spend money on garbage that's going to give them diabetes? And then the people who are sensible enough to try to avoid the diabetes just drink some other garbage and complain about the taste..??

WATER IS DELICIOUS YOU FOOLS

Honestly I think it's more than fluff. Her relationship with her family says a lot about her character and her integrity. She really is the anti-Trump in every conceivable way, and I'm really starting to believe that the stark difference between the two is going to pay off.

It's well established that she has an excellent relationship with her kids-by-marriage, and even became close friends with their bio-mom while attending the kids' extra-curricular activities together.

And my personal favorite part: the kids refer to her as Momala, because step-mom just didn't feel right to them.

Anyone who doesn't find that video endearing has something seriously disturbed going on in their head.

This is the first time I can recall having someone so human and genuine run for the presidency. Obama was close, but he was also so polished and reserved, probably because he felt he needed to be as the first black president. Kamala seems like someone who's really speaking from the heart, and I think that's what America needs most right now.

My only concern is the demographic that would have been too lazy to vote but now will be frothing at the mouth to vote against a black woman.

I can only hope they're outweighed by the demographic that was apathetic toward Biden but is willing to get off the couch to vote for Harris.

I've been thinking a good line for her to whip out some time would be "From my line of work I'm accustomed to guilty felons being afraid of me, and former president Trump is clearly no exception to that."

Would you have us believe that while money is still the deciding factor in politics, we should let our own political campaigns starve and die so that strangers on the internet can't falsely accuse us of being hypocrites? 🙄😮‍💨

I don't doubt that in this case it's both silly and unacceptable that their driver was having this catastrophic failure, and it was probably caused by systemic failure at the company, likely driven by hubris and/or cost-cutting measures.

Although I wouldn't take it as a given that the system should be allowed to continue if the anti-virus doesn't load properly more generally.

For an enterprise business system, it's entirely plausible that if a crucial anti-virus driver can't load properly then the system itself may be compromised by malware, or at the very least the system may be unacceptably vulnerable to malware if it's allowed to finish booting. At that point the risk of harm that may come from allowing the system to continue booting could outweigh the cost of demanding manual intervention.

In this specific case, given the scale and fallout of the failure, it probably would've been preferable to let the system continue booting to a point where it could receive a new update, but all I'm saying is that I'm not surprised more generally that an OS just goes ahead and treats an anti-virus driver failure at BSOD worthy.

Rust makes sense though.

When talking about the driver level, you can't always just proceed to the next thing when an error happens.

Imagine if you went in for open heart surgery but the doctor forgot to put in the new valve while he was in there. He can't just stitch you up and tell you to get on with it, you'll be bleeding away inside.

In this specific case we're talking about security for business devices and critical infrastructure. If a security driver is compromised, in a lot of cases it may legitimately be better for the computer to not run at all, because a security compromise could mean it's open season for hackers on your sensitive device. We've seen hospitals held random, we've seen customer data swiped from major businesses. A day of downtime is arguably better than those outcomes.

The real answer here is crowdstrike needs a more reliable CI/CD pipeline. A failure of this magnitude is inexcusable and represents a major systemic failure in their development process. But the OS crashing as a result of that systemic failure may actually be the most reasonable desirable outcome compared to any other possible outcome.

I've had to explain this to a lot of people who naturally assume that any organization of people will be organized around some kind of shared values. Most of the time that's true, but not for Republicans.

Republicans are just a mish mash of obsessive single-issue voters, and by in large they just don't care about the other single issues that their fellow party members are going on about.

At the head of the Republican party it's people who want to minimize their tax burden, eliminate regulations on corporations, and cannibalize as much of the US government as they can into for-profit institutions. You could say that's three issues instead of one, but the overarching theme is to cater to personal greed, no matter the harm to society. These are the ones who are primarily pulling the strings in the party, at least historically.

Just below them is the military industrial complex and gun manufacturers who just want to sell guns no matter the harm to society. They like to rile up 2A fanatics with conspiracy theories that the government is out to steal all their guns so they'll be defenseless, paving the way for King Biden to ascend to his throne. The industry only cares about selling guns and the fanatics only care about having guns, and neither care about any kind of harm to society.

Then there's the radical Christians whose obsessions cover an eclectic mix of social reactionary positions and literal death cult worship (e.g. Christians who give absolute support to genocide in Palestine because they think Israel's conquest is a crucial step towards the rapture, which they believe is imminent). Broadly speaking the people in this group just want to hoist their religious doctrines onto everyone they can by any means available and no matter the harm it causes to society. They literally only care about "God's Kingdom" in the afterlife.

Then there's people who just lack any capacity for adaptation or learning. Their obsession is to feel like things are staying the same, or even reverting back to a past that they only know how to view through rose tinted glasses. They can't be bothered to comprehend the problems we're facing as a society or how the past was not the idyllic utopia that they mistakenly remember, nor can the old way of doing things sustain a growing and transforming society. These people just want to exist in comforting ignorance by feeling like they get to remain in familiar surroundings, no matter the harm to society.

There's really only one thing that truly unites them: Each one wants one specific thing no matter the harm to society, and that one specific thing that they each want IS HARMFUL to society. But they work well together because none of them care about the harm being caused by any of the others, and as long as they all tow the same line, each one gets what they want.

And what if someone is convinced that acts of cruelty towards some humans is the most effective way to reduce cruelty towards a large number of animals? They might think that you're not vegan because you're allowing more cruelty towards animals to exist than they are. I have encountered self-identifying vegans who genuinely think this way.

This has to be the stupidest take on the term "plant based" I've ever heard. I swear, "plant based" is just the "No true Scotsman" of vegans.. anything that a non-meat-consumer does that a vegan doesn't like makes them plant based instead of vegan. It's so asinine and intellectually dishonest.

Vegan people can be assholes too. Assholes will inevitably exist in any demographic that gets sufficiently large. I have known people who identify as vegans who insist that it's preferable for humans to die than for non-human animals to die.

Also since when is open exchange of ideas and concerns equated with control?

Am I trying to control you if I suggest that you not leave your tap running in California because fresh water is a precious resource in drought-plagued land?

Am I trying to control you if I suggest that you reduce your plastic consumption because we have a major microplastic crisis so severe that human babies are being born with plastic already in their body?

Am I trying to control you if I point out that the modern meat industry is ecologically unsustainable, so you're going to have to switch to being vegetarian sooner or later since the meat production will literally collapse itself, so you may as well start now before it's a global crisis?

If I suggest that you not hit yourself in the head with a hammer, is that me trying to control you, or is that just an act of very basic concern for your well being? And if hitting yourself in the head with a hammer becomes trendy, am I trying to control everyone if I suggest that we shouldn't be doing that because brain injuries will make us dumber as a society?

Thanks for your candid views on this.

To be clear, our interest in subsistence farming is not intended to do anything to solve the problems we're facing as a society. It's an attempt to figure out how we might try to survive locally after the global supply chains collapse. We're particularly researching what crops might be viable in a landscape that has been reshaped by the changing climate. Additionally we're studying everything we can about community organizing and systems of self-governance that promote collaboration over individual greed.

This might all sound defeatist to someone like yourself who is still committed to fighting the good fight, but we see it as a contingency plan that our community's ability to survive may depend on in the future.

I really admire that you're committed to recycling and waste reduction. Do you have any resources you'd recommend for me to learn more about what's going on in that space and what's being done to combat the acceleration of plastic and electronics waste?

I know it's "not your job" to educate me, but everything I can find on the topic suggests that we don't have a viable path to manage the accelerating growth of waste, and we don't have very effective systems for recycling, so even recyclable waste is mostly just being dumped in landfills because it's more "economical" to just keep churning out products from new materials. I'd be very happy for all of that to be wrong, so any credible source you can point me at to debunk that narrative would be very much appreciated.

Let me know which part was confusing to you

The part where you left out any viable path for any of the hypothetical solutions to be realized 🤷‍♂️ You of all people should know that a blueprint is worthless if there's no process available to build what it describes.

Damn here I am thinking that this is one of the most important parts of civilization.

I mean yeah, I do agree that sanitation and water works are the crowning achievement of human civilization to this very day. But I've gotta say it doesn't inspire confidence if the people running those systems think that concerns about sustainability are something to have a group chuckle about.

Just because the work you do is important doesn't mean it's beyond the scrutiny of ecological sustainability. All your good work won't amount to much in the long run if we can't find a path to reducing consumption and prolonging the viability of these systems. We don't have infinite resources, and our ability to recycle is nowhere near what it needs to be to keep up with economic demand.

Tell you what, why not be the change you want to see in the world and stop flushing your toilet, stop using tap water, stop recycling anything, and don't set your garbage out.

My partner and I are unironically taking the time to research subsistence farming and how to maintain very basic personal water collection and waste removal/reuse systems. We're also learning about perma-computing so that hopefully we can preserve some of the knowledge that humans have accumulated into the future.

We see it as a foregone conclusion that human civilization as we know it will entirely collapse, probably sooner than anyone cares to admit, so we're making contingency plans. People with your dismissive attitude are a big part of why we see it as a forgone conclusion. Because as far as we can tell you're in the 95%+ majority of people on this planet, which means hardly anyone is putting effort into solving these existential problems that we're facing. Problems which you have offered no viable solution to, despite your insistence otherwise.

That isn't my job.

So then you didn't "solve" the impossible problems.

I hope you and your colleagues have a good laugh about how the work you do is contributing to the march towards the end of human civilization as we know it.

I never suggested these problems are impossible to solve, but you haven't solved them in your post because you haven't laid out how to overcome the political and economic resistance to implementing any of this, and that's where the biggest challenge is.

Although I think it's naive to believe that nuclear power and renewable energy can allow us to keep consuming energy recklessly. Renewable energy technology still puts a significant strain on the environment, in terms of mining rare-earth elements, pollution produced during manufacturing, and material waste from devices that have reached end of life. Nuclear energy is rife with controversy.. I used to be firmly in support of it, but I've grown skeptical, largely because of the ecological damage from the mining and construction processes, and we don't have a clear story of what end of life looks like for a nuclear power plant. A plant can only be expected to operate for 40-60 years at which point it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, repeating the massive costs of material waste and construction all over again.

At the end of the day the only way for humanity to survive is for everyone to be reducing their consumption, but I honestly the think the vast majority of people today would rather die and take everyone else down with them than accept more responsible consumption habits.