Show newer

@cobratbq Its a poor test when virtually 100% of bots will and do have that level of sophistication

@TruthSandwich Im looking to diversify into the "tire track stained underwear" market soon, but seems like Trump is already hoarding all the supply in that industry to try to price-fix....

@TruthSandwich I have a sack of dirty socks worth 2.7 billion.. Trump can suck it if we can valuate our selves I declare myself the richest man in the world.

@freepeoplesfreepress

I was thinking more int he context of website posting emails. I was talking about fedihandles.

@freemo

RHNB vs Semtex
RHNB vs Airbag
RHNB vs Block of Magnesium
RHNB vs Reel of Detcord

Poets abuse lies to show the truth. Politicians abuse the truth to tell lies.

Inspired by a chat with @thor

tip: If you stop wearing under arm deodorant you will instantly know when you start showing symptoms of an infection as you will realize you can no longer smell your own BO.

This also has the added benefit of ensuring people keep the mandatory distance from you when in public.

Things I want to see RHNB vs X videos of (Red Hot Nickel Ball):

* RHNB vs C4
* RHNB vs Gasoline
" RHNB vs HHO
* RHNB vs Mercury Metal
* RHNB vs Sodium Metal

What I get:

* RHNB vs Pepsi
* RHNB vs Watermelon
* RHNB vs Ice

just a friendly reminder typing " at " instead of "@" when putting your email down does **absolutely nothing** to protect your email. bots will recognize it just as easily and scrape it. The only thing youve accomplished to add more steps and waste the time of legitimate people trying to email you.

@garyackerman My god... the horror! Please print out that email, delete every copy from your server, then burn the print out and dissolve the ashes in acid... we must ensure this vile thing never makes it into the fossil record forever staining our species!

@Baley You have the energy to put on pajamas on your day off? I'm impressed!

What name do you like best for a non-profit community for Ham Radio? Think Apache incubator but for Ham plus other open-source services and resources for the community.

FYI I have both the dot com and dot org as well as the hyphenated and non hyphenated versions of the below. Please mention which variant you prefer in comments.

So apparently I just realized when i first started as a ham over a decade ago I participated in an E-M-E contact (Earth-Moon-Earth). I had no idea what it was at the time but i see in my notes it just says "EME net?" and now as a more expiernced ham i literally know I was talking with someone by bouncing our signals off the moon..... soooo cool.

@dd0ul wasnt too happy ar first glane... Finally decided to host a CloudLog.

Thanks for the answer

@TruthSandwich

I am not trolling..

Yes I've done the math..

There have been 59 elections for president in the history of the USA... in that time 8 of those have been elections where a third party from a previous year was one of the two top parties in the current election.

In all those cases the third parties the year before a switch had about the same support as they do now in terms of percentage, and the next year shot up to 50%+

that works out to a 13.5% chance in any one election of a third party with ~2% support or less from a previous year will win that year.

If we look at recent history points of note the last time one came close was Ross perot in 1992 at nearly 20% of the vote, and of course in the early part of 19th centraully where was also a third party coming into the top two.

While all of that does suggest a third party is certainly the long-shot... to say impossible is just not factual... Depending on how you look at iut there is a 13.5% chance at best, at worst maybe a 5% chance of them winning.

Voting for the non-evil choice with a 5% chance I will take any day than voting for teh super-evil choice who is just a tiny bit less evil than the other super-evil choice just because he had a 40% change of winning.

Thats not a strategically wise tradeoff for me.

@AmpBenzScientist

@AmpBenzScientist French is the language I am, by comparison, the worst at... I think even chinese is easier for me honestly.

@TruthSandwich

I am not trolling..

Yes I've done the math..

There have been 59 elections for president in the history of the USA... in that time 8 of those have been elections where a third party from a previous year was one of the two top parties in the current election.

In all those cases the third parties the year before a switch had about the same support as they do now in terms of percentage, and the next year shot up to 50%+

that works out to a 13.5% chance in any one election of a third party with ~2% support or less from a previous year will win that year.

If we look at recent history points of note the last time one came close was Ross perot in 1992 at nearly 20% of the vote, and of course in the early part of 19th centraully where was also a third party coming into the top two.

While all of that does suggest a third party is certainly the long-shot... to say impossible is just not factual... Depending on how you look at iut there is a 13.5% chance at best, at worst maybe a 5% chance of them winning.

Voting for the non-evil choice with a 5% chance I will take any day than voting for teh super-evil choice who is just a tiny bit less evil than the other super-evil choice just because he had a 40% change of winning.

Thats not a strategically wise tradeoff for me.

@AmpBenzScientist

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.