I presume that much of the absolutely most essential services have had to move underground, beyond reach of such things.

Remember that letter sent out by most of the top security people in the nation, that if Trump won a second time rather than ~~Biden~~ anyone else, that America would - not might, would - fall to Russia? Trump surely would not be so petty as to fire all those who signed it once in office, thereby leaving this country exposed without any intelligence capabilities (hehe, in more ways than one:-P)?

We came so close to it all being over, but nonetheless managed to dodge one bullet that almost ended this "experiment in democracy", and now it's 4 years later so time to reload this Russian Roulette round and play again... Except this time with that SCOTUS ruling that nobody seems to talk about anymore, and with Project 2025, the stakes are higher than ever before and this is for sure the last election that we'll ever have to do ever again (as Trump himself literally said) - unless ofc Democrats win and then ofc we'll simply repeat this roulette again in another 4 years time.

And it seems most others who voted on it did not 😂

Oh right, but that too - how much maintenance could that "need", compared to something constantly growing?

Which words - Janitor's Weed Wacker?

Still a far cry from Raccoon Sex Dungeon:-)

Also, I cannot see anything used in the music sphere that could be even remotely misconstrued as being anti-weed. :-P

That's still effort every other year. Tbf I don't know what all is involved in "maintenance" of concrete - I presumed that one could ignore it far easier, but I have nothing with which to back that up:-).

This will be beautiful. One downside is that it will need more maintenance costs, i.e. you can't just walk away from it for years at a time, especially if it were somewhere that poison ivy could start to grow. But definitely an uplifting positive direction to be heading in!:-)

The host OS is likewise limited, but more by hardware, so it might be a small performance tradeoff, depending on whether, as you brought up, you need Linux to be ultimately in control rather than to simply run some software.

So that would not always work, ofc... but it sometimes would!:-)

He seems to think like a mathematician or philosopher and enjoyed considering each of those items separately, in isolation from one another - plus as a YouTuber, he needs to release moar content, moar often, so multiple videos helps him maintain his existence that way as opposed to a single, larger video, especially on a complex topic that since it is >1 minute long, the vast majority of people are not going to watch anyway.:-P

But anyway, if he's already mathematically proved certain things about e.g. ranked-choice, and how it differs from whatever else, then why should he bother going further into the weeds, that the vast majority of people don't care the tiniest bit about? After all, a look at basically every election ever, especially recently, reveals that the common people know next to nothing about how the system works. e.g. people voting against Hillary Clinton in 2016, either by voting 3rd party, or switching to the "Never Hillary" movement to actively vote for Trump, but then being shocked - shocked I tell you! SHOOKETH! - when he won. So if we can't figure out that 1+1=2, then differential calculus, much less simple algebra, is going to be beyond us (collectively) as well.

So, I took it as not that he refused to consider those other possibilities, just that he was focusing his description to explain one thing in isolation of other concepts, as much as possible at least. e.g. regardless of whether he should have been talking about (or naming it as) FPTP, that's what he was aiming to do, so that's what he did.

About the Rules for Rulers I think similarly as above but also: the "rulers" there aren't necessarily the ones in charge, as is true for the monarchies & totalitarian regimes, but rather the "voters" who put those people in charge. In that formulation, why should the non-voters (e.g. literal children, people who are mentally disabled, etc.) have power over & above that of the voters, i.e. the responsible "rulers"?

Although that is exactly what always ends up happening... eventually, in any such system. Imagine a person who votes, individually, but then also is responsible for gerrymandering a district of lets say a million people. So they should have had power equal to 1/1000000, though instead they overturned the decisions of those million people and single-handedly altered the election, FAR in excess of their individual voting power. They cannot overturn the collective weight of a full million voters all speaking with a single unified voice... but they could make a vote for e.g. 1/10th vs. 9/10ths end up with the former rather than the latter being in charge, which is pretty damn powerful (it doesn't have to be "perfect", it just has to work - possibly in conjunction with other things like removing certain classes of people as voters). So here, irl rather than in pure theory in isolation of irl considerations, "rulers" end up NOT being the voters, but rather those in charge b/c they are willing to cheat the system, to keep themselves in charge or at least others exactly like them, using non-voting schemes. i.e. it is the True Rulers(TM) who are "in charge" rather than the voting ones, who were put into place by non-voting systems, so the entire system gets turned upon its head and does if not 100% then still effectively the opposite of what it was originally intended to - that is, it ignores/overturns votes rather than uses them to determine the outcomes of elections.

So if we, the aspiring rulers i.e. voters, wish to actually rule, then we need to know what we are up against. And if others cheat... well then that does not mean that we have to as well, but we should at least be aware that that is what is going on!?! To some degree at least, even if not 100%, hence it is "biased" and "unfair" and "rigged". That is what I took from those videos, collectively.

Somewhat.

If the poster themselves removed it, then no - these usually shows up as "deleted" rather than "removed" (but not always). Sometimes apps that don't properly pay attention to the removal request can still see these, but I know of no effective way to view these routinely, short of spinning up your own instance and archiving not only every post and comment but also all of their edits as well.

For mod removal, you can check the modlog (for your instance here, or the one for Lemmy.World, both of which theoretically should show the same contents, but in practice they don't for whatever reasons). Note that is the entire modlog for the entire Fediverse, so it requires filtering to find the specific post/comment that you want to know about. The Lemmy devs could help people see the modlog much easier, but they don't. They don't seem too big on such democratic efforts, and very often simply ban people outright, from the entire instance including communities they've never once visited, if you ever criticize what they say or if you say something that they do not agree with. Though they did recently release a feature to allow mods to do this - further increasing the power of the establishment, while leaving common plebes like us to have to filter the modlog (which also can hide the identity of the mod who removed it).

Ergo, I would not hold my breath waiting for this feature. At least not on Lemmy, but perhaps from the more democratically-managed PieFed or Sublinks or Mbin or such... I could really see that happening for those?

Edit: oh but for text like the "removed", hell no, that's also a lost cause - at least, again, on the Lemmy codebase, unless you use an instance that decides not to implement the language filtering.

Thank you for confirming that you think of me as your bitch. This after all is why I left Reddit - to come here to do exactly the same.

An aspect he completely ignores in favour of spreadsheet thinking.

That's bc he explains each concept mostly in isolation of others, leaving other concepts for separate videos themselves. But in e.g. Rules for Rulers, he very much discusses power dynamics. And I thought he had another one - in addition to the more mathematical one - illustrating FPTP using the animal kingdom, where technically people might assume one thing to be true, but based on power dynamics in practice it never is.

So watch Rules for Rulers yet if you haven't - it may change literally everything about your understanding, as it did mine.

Edit - references:

1. FPTP explanained mathematically

2. gerrymandering explained separately

3. rules for Rulers, outlining necessary considerations involved with any path forward - i.e. it works against anyone and especially those who ignore this principle