You don’t want oligarchy and she’s on oligarchy’s side. Please remember what made Trump win the first time.

I don’t expect her to improve things at all. Only compared to what would happen if Trump would win.

It’s just hard to trust them. So - buying an Apple laptop to install Linux there? Doesn’t seem to make much sense, though Linus Torvalds seems to be of a different opinion.

I don’t have to be asked that by some moron to express my opinions.

I’m not sure you know what the word “objective” means.

For oligarchy they are not, since economic development reduces the oligarch’s power, which is a thing relative to the total size of economy. Same with social power.

anticommunist propaganda

As if that was needed to show how communists do things.

people feel like they’re getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them

Correct.

Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn’t tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature

Not only that’s correct, but she’s still your enemy. It’s just a situation where one has to choose what’s worse. From my point of view far from USA - Trump is immediately worse. But that doesn’t mean Harris is going to radically improve things.

It’s sad you have no third strong grassroots movement, but that seems to be the case in every shitty election.

Russia, when it supposedly had those, first was choosing between Yeltsin and his “kinda democrats, but with that smell” and “red-brown” communists with Stalin pics and swastikas, second between Putin and senile communists, the third one was between thinly masqueraded Putin and rich city kids, and then it kinda lost meaning. Trump is kinda similar to the “red-brown” side in the first example.

One can find many such example.

He says that fear is a bigger motivator than love.

He’s correct in a sense you may not notice.

Those voters fear Harris and what she represents, and love some idea of what GOP could in theory represent.

So the fact that Trump is shit means less for them as it’s on the side they love, while Harris being stronger makes them even more afraid.

That is, the best strategy for Dems to insure victory would be to successfully present Trump as having a potential to win to his own voters. Then they would care about him being a felon and such.

I don’t get why even use their “blessed” hardware.

When I was at school, a few things made me want it:

1. Apple was still kinda fine back then, playing nice with FOSS community;

2. I had good memories from using QuickTime under Windows 2000;

3. I’ve been Jobswashed by a few books for kids saying how innovative he was;

4. I had a PSP, it was really cool to use for listening to music, playing games, reading books in the Web (over wi-fi) and even Skype, and I thought iPhones seem kinda similar;

5. I was possessed by imitated (was bored, wanted to feel something real and heroic) romantic feelings and real (bright hair, greenish-gray eyes, warm smile, subtle voice, and at that moment she seemed intelligent and nice ; turned out not as honest though) sexual desire of one girl who had an iPhone, a perfect product placement, one can say;

6. Apple’s UIs back then seemed very usable, only later I actually tried them and realized that even Windows makes me less furious;

7. It still wasn’t today’s Apple, they seemed trustworthy.

None of this applies today.

I dunno what that was, but I got a cup of something transparent and not tasty once at BK. Don’t think I felt too bad, maybe cause I stopped drinking that immediately.

I’m not sure if you are reinforcing the request for a source or agreeing with me, ha-ha.

I’ll try. But my own experience with using those chatbots to find sources is not satisfactory, but then I was trying to find sources on very specific things.

No pretense. They are not good in my subjective opinion just like they might be good in your subjective opinion. There’s no objective taste.

No, just experience.

“Normal” people lie and bend morals so naturally that they don’t see it. The discourse in their social bubble is more important than reality for them. They can say and believe absolutely contradictory things, which just have to be accepted as true by their social environment.

How can there be any research on this? It’s literally normal. It’s how political agitation works.

About autistic people not doing this - autistic people take discourses even more radically, but that kinda helps, because you have to check yourself for your perceptions to work with the real world at all. Also due to the effort needed to switch between various discourses, which happens naturally for normals, autistic people notice the fact that they switch.

Normals don’t need that and thus can live all their life in common dreams.

I think I could find something more scientific to read on these things, but why would I really, it’s obvious.

OK, punch tape it is then.

It’s baffling, you can do a lot of tasks with a compact version of PDP-11 (there were two Soviet clones, I don’t remember which of them is which - one was a proper one, and could be used as a terminal server too, another had the monitor board simplified, IIRC, making it more of a normal PC of that time, just with PDP-11 CSA and the OS was RTX-11 in essence, but reverse-engineered and localized and with hardware drivers for those machines).

(I know it’s a different period and they had floppies.)

Why do we need such enormously complex fragile things? We rely on them so much that if, say, a “global thermonuclear war” really happens, with following hunger, movements of population, rapid climate changes, - our civilization is profoundly fucked.

… of non-autistic humans. Which is why I like systems not reliant on what somebody considers kind.

Yeah, though not in the domain of singing.

Magnetic tape?

Tape backups, baby.

No, I don’t have a library of those. I don’t even have a tape drive.

Russia, the social group - eh, schoolteachers

The dude has had long enough to learn how to mask.

Autistic people go to therapy to stop masking. Masking is wrong and bad.

Their views were in general along the lines that there are poor people and there are rich people. Poor people owe nobody nothing (including respect to property rights, personal space, privacy and so on), and are owed everything. Rich people vice versa, it’s them paying with rights for their asocial riches.

Now who’s poor is not absolute, it’s who owns less than deserved, and what’s deserved is big for their friends and similar-minded people. And who’s rich is the same, but owning more than deserved, and if they don’t like you, you deserve less.

It’s the kind of people who love Stalin.

I like wasting my time on lost causes, I think I’m not the only one.

I’m more of an elf than a troll, but there are various readings of mythology