Why? Ask the author.

I’m not the author so I’m going to speculate wildly that this may be an artifact from back when the button was introduced. SMBC wanted to encourage its readers to vote for the comic on “top webcomics” listings, and the extra comic panel was introduced as an incentive to do so - you would see it after voting. Since SMBC became popular enough that doing that was redundant, the author kept the extra panel around but took out the requirement to vote to see it.

oh whoops

This, and the really long late night Girls Gone Wild commercials on Comedy Central. I think the first thing I ever pirated was a GGW video, lmao.

Same. Buster is my most recent must-have extension for this reason, auto solves like 95% of CAPTCHAs for me.

Yeah the most recent version of CAPTCHA is completely seamless for the end user because there is no more value to be had gathering this kind of data. Instead it runs in the background of the web site, looking at your mouse movements/clicks/keystrokes, and determining whether or not you’re a bot based on that information.

The problem is a lot of websites still use the old version, or their own hacked together CAPTCHA alternative, which decent bots have been able to beat for a while now.

Never worry about Nazgûl again!

SteamVR and ALVR are the only ones that I’ve gotten to work, no dice on standalone DCS though which was the whole reason I bought the damn headset a couple years ago

Yeah. The article explains whether the IANA rules come from, but this kind of thing happens so rarely that frankly it should be handled on a case by case basis, and in this case the .io domain should just be straight up reassigned to the people that it should always have been assigned to.

True fact once I was getting a drink with my younger brother and he asked me to get him a Prime, kid took about three sips before he gave up on the rest and got a glass of water, lmao.

2001 came out in 1968, so a year before the actual moon landing. As long as you were economical with your shots, you could definitely do some realistic-looking microgravity and spaceships with 60s tech - what you couldn’t do with 60s tech, as a commenter above pointed out, was a long flat shot of people moving convincingly on the lunar surface, which is what the Apollo films show.

tbh this post made me double check my calendar.

before… SCOTUS had been carving out exceptions to the fourth and fifth amendments

They’ve been doing that shit since the country was founded. The fourth and fifth amendments only exist if you’re a rich person and the cops need an excuse not to investigate you.

I’ve heard of card counters getting stopped by security when they try to walk into a casino, there are definitely ways to “make” someone’s car and put it in a database but the tech is still spotty afaik.

I thought that’s what you were talking about, only just now see your username

in terms of their foreign policy

but also, regardless of whose president I feel like things for the drag community will continue getting worse in red states while staying the same in blue states. It’s not like the Dems have given us any reason to believe that they will intervene from the federal level to protect minorities of any type.

7. Choosing the distro most aligned with Juche ideology - Red Star OS

I’m a debate pervert but I’m not that dedicated to the bit. Searching your name in the modlog was all I was willing to do.

Anyway perhaps if you simply stopped apologizing for genocides, you would no longer be accused of genocide apologia? Just a suggestion.

The both sides people are accurately pointing out that both sides of the American monoparty are equally accelerationist in terms of their foreign policy. They are both pro genocide, they both want to saber rattle at America’s perceived enemies, they can both potentially start world war 3 - and we’re against that happening.

This is one of the most inane threads I’ve ever seen on Lemmy. Nuance is having a fine understanding of a topic, while the line I’m quoting is taking a complicated topic and boiling it down to a truism. It’s the most obvious and classic form of anti-intellectualism and it certainly does not reflect a nuanced understanding of socialism or communism.

So I guess the problem is that socialism and communism are kinda used in two different ways. One way refers to a political program, the other refers to a hypothetical stage of economic development.

The political programs are more clearly defined. Socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of specific anticapitalist political programs, of which one calls itself Communism. Communism is for people who like the Soviet Union and China, but there’s basically no smoke in that ideology in western countries, where Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are your biggest left wing contenders.

But “socialism” and “communism” as stages of economic development are moving targets, impossible to pin down because they’re entirely hypothetical and there are only a couple countries that have even tried to achieve them. Was the Soviet Union communist? Well, it was lead by Communists in the political program sense, but I don’t think anyone would argue that it achieved communism in the economic and social development sense. Modern day China, too, is Communist in the political sense, but even by their own metrics they are still capitalist, and see socialism as a goal they are working towards (if you believe their rhetoric and don’t think it’s all just cynical, which many western socialists do).

So while the Chinese Communists have their own definition of practical socialism, western leftists are not in power and all of our ideas remain purely theoretical as a result. Add to this the fact that there is no major leftist political org in western countries for the socialists to rally around and you get more definitions of socialism and communism (the stages of economic development) than you can shake a stick at. This leads to the problem you’re describing, where socialism appears to have no solid meaning at all, because the notion of it is so phantasmal.

But I don’t think that you can dismiss socialism or its results as “capitalism, but different,” because the whole thing about socialism is that new power structures create new incentive structures and therefore even if there are some superficial elements of capitalism that remain - like the use of currency - under a socialist regime the outcomes should be more equal, fair, and democratic. There are numerous historical examples of these better alternative outcomes, but of course they’ve all been relentlessly propagandized against in Western countries so that the average person doesn’t realize that there is a better way to run society than the one they were born into.

It makes perfect sense if you understand how nuance works.

Saying “if you do too much socialism, it’s communism” is exactly the opposite of a nuanced understanding. Please read a pamphlet.