Cincinnati. 2 n’s 1 t

I mean, I love that this happened, but it was at 1 minor US airport and 3 minor Canadian airports (non-TSA). From the article this doesn’t seem like a widespread thing, unfortunately.

“All” is all content on the fediverse, across all instances with which your home instance is federated. It will be similar for all instances, because most are federated with the big instances and those tend to have more posts and interaction.

If you only want to see the feed of communities on your local instance, you can just browse your “Local” feed.

I mean, simple file should already be a thing, and the IRS would prefer it be easier for everyone to file. But h&r block and turbotax have lobbied heavily against it because they’d lose money with easier filing. One way to make things more streamlined and efficient would be to get rid of middle men and focus on making internal systems better.

But this administration wants the internal systems to be broken and needlessly complex so that they can outsource it to their preferred middle men so that they all make a lot more money.

https://archive.org/details/huasipungovillag00icaz

The rich guy comes in, forces the poor locals to build the road, and then keeps the profits from all of the new labor he is able to exploit.

It’s insane. And any attempt to argue against it is shut down immediately. This post (https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/?v=3) is one of the most digestible things I’ve seen for the scale at which those people hoard wealth. It’s so easy to follow and understand how the world could be better if those people didn’t exist. But anyone I try talking to says “oh I’m not going to read all that” or “scrolling through that will take too long” …which is exactly the fucking point. And this is from 4 years ago! Their wealth has only increased while our buying power has gone down.

At step 3. Where the rich person forces conditions onto you and takes most of your production. That is immoral. Especially if he has the resources for both to survive with less effort just by not being selfish

Thick as a Brick

Right, I do despise the Democrats but I still voted Harris for harm reduction. If anything, these 4 long years mentioned above are just going to make me despise Democrats more for fumbling the election so badly

I mentioned this in a comment last week and was called a sexist for not supporting women, because I dared to say a Cheney endorsement was bad for Dems.

This has nothing to do with her gender. In fact, I just said ‘a Cheney.’ Dick Cheney also supported Kamala and that made people want to vote for her even less than Liz did. The fact that Kamala’s positions are so far to the right that known war hawk Dick Cheney threw his support behind her is a BAD thing for a lot of left wing voters.

We weren’t talking about people who voted for Trump instead of Kamala. We are talking about 15 million people who didn’t show up because there was no one running that supported their values.

So some people felt they had no one to vote for.

…with a Cheney*

Just like it’s been approved for the past year.

Hahaha I didn’t even think to check that. Wild

Right, “did Biden drop out” had a spike as seen in the first picture below. It’s hard to tell magnitude. When comparing to another phrase, it’s easy to see that the spike wasn’t even close to the spike for another election day phrase: ‘who is Kamala?’

deleted by creator

Oh my God, I read that as “Kissinger” and thought for a terrible moment that he was still alive.

The original draft probably said “nearly a 300% increase” and then the editor didn’t know the difference between percent increase and basic multiplication.

In the original the possibilities for a prize behind the doors 1,2,3 are:

A) YNN B) NYN C) NNY

In (A) - A.1 you choose door 1 and then stay, you win A.2 you choose door 1 and switch, you lose A.3 you choose door 2 and stay, you lose A.4 You choose door 2 and switch, you win A.5 you choose door 3 and stay, you lose A.6 you choose door 3 and switch, you win

By staying, you lose in 2 of 3 cases (A.3 and A.5)

By switching you only lose in 1 case (A.2)

It works out for (B) and © the same way. You have a 2/3rds chance of winning if you switch and a 1/3rd chance of winning if you don’t.

This isn’t a trick or anything, the math is pretty clear and you can actually write out all the scenarios and count it up yourself. It’s just a little counterintuitive because we aren’t used to thinking in terms of conditional probabilities this way.

Another way to think about it is the probability of losing. If the contestant loses, it means that they picked correctly on their first choice and then swapped. This will happen 1/3rd of the games, because there is a 1 in 3 chance of picking correctly the first time. So, if you have a 1/3rd chance of losing by swapping, then it follows that you have a 2/3rds chance of winning by swapping (choosing incorrectly at the start and then switching to the correct door)