I wonder how hard it would be to rework this advertisements to be what it’s actually used for:

• Immigrants spotted! Administrative warrant issued, ICE deployed!
• Automatic License Plate Recognition with Flock (now a partner), found a “criminal”. Administrative warrant issued, ICE deployed!
• etc.

Having useless discussion on the internet isn’t helpful, but good to know you have a plan… I hope it or something works, should we ever find out, and we don’t end up in a worse situation through ignorance.

Interestingly, I don’t see this as one movement or another, but any or all movements that provide a guide towards the point where enough pressure has show itself to be evident that change is feasible.

You have a better plan that realistically might happen?

The NRA waded into the national dialogue over Pretti’s killing after Bill Essayli – who was appointed by Trump to temporarily serve as a US attorney in California in 2025 – posted on social media: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

In response, the NRA posted: “This sentiment … is dangerous and wrong. Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

Don’t discount their self-interest in this. They don’t want their members to be summarily shot, arrested, or under suspicion just for owning a weapon.

I highly recommend reading some of the paper, listening to a podcast where they talk about the rule, or watch her TEDx. Chenoweth addresses some of the challenges you put forth, if not directly, in the context of what she’s researched.

And yes, there ate issues with it, but not to the degree which make something to disregard. It’s a rule of thumb which will help us make the change we seek. Think of it as hope.

You Are Not So Smart did a podcast where they talk about the rule and interview her, and she makes some of these additional points.

Also this is the update in 2020 for direct download from the Carr center. “Questions, Answers, and Some Cautionary Updates Regarding the 3.5% Rule” which has a summary describing some of what you said.

For me, one of the salient points is that a nonviolent movement has much more “power” than does a violent movement, not that ones don’t work without violence, but in the land of guns we need less violence not more. I am not saying that the 3.5 percent is a rule, as I care less about the rule than the change we need from a mass movement. And more than any of this, is that we can disrupt our Nation’s slide into authoritarianism if we take civil disobedience and noncooperation to heart in our actions, it should not take a civil war or a violent revolution, but we MUST ACT.

And yes I would agree that this movement is potentially lacking a specific outcome right now, beyond disbanding ICE which is discreet, but not systemic. The US system is fundamentally a gerontocracy which is in need of reform, but we live in an age of ignorance and distraction where it is hard to remake a vision of a new form of liberal democracy free from the corrupting powers of money. In this we must accept what good outcomes we can get.

I think you are missing the last digit. https://share.libbyapp.com/title/11693967

Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism by Sarah Wynn-Williams

An explosive insider account charting one woman’s career at the heart of one of the most influential companies on the planet, Careless People gives you a front-row seat to Meta, the decisions that have shaped world events in recent decades, and the people who made them.

From trips on private jets and encounters with world leaders to shocking accounts of misogyny and double standards behind the scenes, this searing memoir exposes both the personal and the political fallout when unfettered power and a rotten company culture take hold. In a gripping and often absurd narrative where a few people carelessly hold the world in their hands, this eye-opening memoir reveals what really goes on among the global elite.

Sarah Wynn-Williams tells the wrenching but fun story of Facebook, mapping its rise from stumbling encounters with juntas to Mark Zuckerberg’s reaction when he learned of Facebook’s role in Trump’s election. She experiences the challenges and humiliations of working motherhood within a pressure cooker of a workplace, all while Sheryl Sandberg urges her and others to “lean in.”

Careless People is a deeply personal account of why and how things have gone so horribly wrong in the past decade—told in a sharp, candid, and utterly disarming voice. A deep, unflinching look at the role that social media has assumed in our lives, Careless People reveals the truth about the leaders of Facebook: how the more power they grasp, the less responsible they become and the consequences this has for all of us.

That’s an idiotic statement. Realism or understanding what realpolitik is in a political situation is far more likely to allow you find and develop change in an organization, as well keep you from wasting your time on useless leverage points. In this case knowing both frames of reference is valuable so that action can be taken, as opposed to just writing five words.

Being halfway between both sides, I can see the need for a monetary model to sustain development, yet I am challenged by the opacity that this feels like. The OP’s point that it feels like a downward slide toward principles compromise is challenging. Especially in light of the enshittification of everything lately, Mozilla needs to do a better job communicating how this is not going down that path and yet also trying to sustain itself.

Correct me if I’m wrong but ladybird is focused on a new browser, and not a new browser that is privacy oriented? Their language is pretty specific about donations and independence, but I didn’t catch anything that specifically denotes privacy.

I’m not an expert, but have read a decent amount on this. Others may have more and better info.

With that said, even if an Article 5 invocation won’t bring the US into your fight, it provides a hefty infrastructure of value to countries in it. From basing, to logistics, to intelligence, to aid, it is valuable. Now the politics of it are complicated and the US can hinder some of that value, but it still means that in Europe if Russia provides an Article 5 reason, other countries in NATO can choose to help in various forms. That’s not nothing. It’s also faster and less arduous then negotiating individual defense treaties with neighbors and others.

So yes, overall probably still worth it. Even if just as an entree into other alliances.

As some who has been out literal in the woods, can someone give me more context?

The PI’s I deal with on Research Vessels almost always get their hands dirty. Both in the lab and on deck, so managing is more of an added responsibility, as opposed to a managerial shift to desk bound life.

Maybe not true for all areas.

While I don’t begrudge another blocker, I do wonder why you wouldn’t want to use ublock origjn.

And maybe not even that much ‘fun’ as it landed as a cat3 rather then 5, so might be bad but not horrific. Also valid point on being prepared. The ultimate preppers, who follow orders, and have a plan even if it doesn’t last.

Perhaps this should be decreed in a new Geneva convention as the only allowed long range missile system? That would make wars less deadly and more useful.

Say more please? What’s the advantage?

https://github.com/deniscerri/ytdlnis can queue and more, might take a look.

Interesting! Any list of good TUI games on Linux?