DankOfAmerica

Yes, thank you! This is what I was getting at. The critique isn't objective stuff. It seems deep-rooted and personal. It's not about being upset with an action or policy. It's hate.

Something here is fishy. How does the US not know where Maduro is?

I have been using Linux 100% for the past several years without any use of Win. The last time I used Win, it was Win 7 on a work computer. All I know about Win since is from what I see on Lemmy and the very few short instances when I might look at a friend's computer. What I remember not liking about it was a lack of control in comparison to Linux and that it would get slower and slower with updates. Is the latest Win really as bad as Lemmy makes it out to be? Are there ads in the OS? Does it truly spy on you without your knowledge?

Can you clarify? I'm confused as to whether you think Win ME was the best or worst version of Win.

I thought Win 2000 was an improvement. Didn't Win 3.1 literally run on top of DOS? Like, DOS was the actual operating system and Win 3.1 was merely the graphical user interface/desktop environment, so it consumed a bunch more hardware resources? I think I remember having to run many programs out of DOS so that they would run more smoothly than if I used Win 3.1. In that sense, Win 3.1 was really Ski Free, Space Cadet Pinball, Solitaire, Minesweeper, and a nice file manager.

I also liked the improvements of Win Vista, but my laptop couldn't seem to keep up with the requirements needed for things to run smoothly. Win 7 seemed like a smoother Win Vista, so that was nice. However, I felt let down that there were no major noticeable improvements other than performance, which could also have been attributed to improvements in hardware. Around then, I started experimenting with Linux out of sheer curiosity and slowly switched to Linux 100%. In the past several years, I know about Win only from what I hear on Lemmy, so ofc I think it's terrible, but I wouldn't know from personal experience and judgment. I'm happy af with Linux anyway.

For me, what works is an ADHD medication along with not trying to fall asleep. Trying to fall asleep causes me something in the area of anxiety and guilt, so I end up frustrating myself awake. If I focus on a mindless task like scrolling through Lemmy or reading a book, I get engaged in that and end up accidentally falling asleep. The funny thing is that I have to keep doing my mindless task until I fall asleep, so many times, I wake up looking like I passed out in the middle of something with my glasses still on and my phone laying around. I'm actually curiously impressed that my glasses or phone haven't broken yet.

The Red Army along with the Western Allies defeated the Nazis. It is true that the Red Army a magnitude more of losses and were responsible for 3/4 of Nazis killed in battle, so they objectively lost more of their own and took more Nazi lives. However, that is not the only factor that won the war. The Red Army received a considerable amount of military equipment from the West. Additionally, one can argue that the Red Army lost so many lives in part to their military strategy in which deserters and dissenters where killed. Shoot. Their leader was Stalin. Often times, Red Army soldiers would be ordered to rush a Nazi position knowing it would be certain death, but if they disobeyed, they would be killed by other Red Army soldiers. Plus, the Western allies, especially the UK, the USA, and Canada fought the Nazis on another front, forcing the Nazis to split their military units, equipment, and supplies. The Americans also were the main force fighting against the Japanese Empire, which reduced the strain on the Soviet Union allowing it to focus more on the Nazis eastern front, though technically, that has nothing to do with the war between the Nazis and the Red Army. And in the beginning, it was the UK that took the brunt of the Nazi war machine. Civilians in London were taking shelter in the subway during Nazi bombing missions. I would also like to give a shout out to the French resistance that terrorized Nazi occupation.

The Red Army definitely took the heaviest human toll against the Nazis. Estimates for Red Army losses vary immensely since they were so high and the war was so chaotic. Their losses were so much, that some of the ranges of casualty estimates I have seen on Wikipedia are as large as the rest of the lives lost by everyone else. According to a quick search on Perplexity, the Red Army loss ~8.7 million soldiers, while the rest of the allies lost ~1 million. So if there is an estimate that the Red Army suffered between 8.2 & 9.2 million, the range would be as wide as the losses of Allied military forces. Furthermore, many major battles were on Soviet ground, so they also suffered immense civilian casualties. Perplexity gives an estimate of 13.7 million Soviet civilian deaths. That's over twice the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust which was a systematic genocide carried out to be as efficient as possible by a people known for efficiency.

Despite all of that, the Soviet Union did not defeat the Nazis on their own. They had considerable and decisive help from Western allies, both in battle and supplies. The Soviets took the brunt of the losses, and without WWII, the world would be an unrecognizable political landscape in which communism may have been more popular or prominent, whether you would prefer that or not. However, it is disingenuous to say the Red Army defeated the Nazis on their own.

and corn isn’t street food

I disagree. Corn in Mexico definitely works as a street food. Also, I just realized this, but I wonder why corn didn't pick up as street food in Chicago and Indianapolis.

We could have utopia tomorrow. The path to change worldwide is to effect change where you live. If we all started there, then the local changes would spread. People would want what they have locally to work in larger scales. We don't have to call it socialism, capitalism, communism, conservative , liberal, freedom, whatever. Terms are proxy enemies used to make us fear or love based on heuristics. We inherently know what a just world would feel and look like. It's in our nature. If someone has to convince you to override your intuition, then it's shit. Don't look for answers elsewhere. Don't blindly follow anyone. Build the world you want in your heart at home. It will grow out from there. Also, I used to love orange juice as a kid. I drank it from a silly clown cup I got at a performance on ice one time when my parents took me.

I don't think it's a social expectation. It's more of an outcome of the interaction between the current societal system and technology. There are likely several systems we can develop and implement to reduce the overwhelming amount of info we need to consume on a regular basis, but as with any social system, changing things takes power away from the ones in power.

On a good note, one reason your expected to be updated on news is that you have a say in the political system. If you didn't have any power in the political system, then not only would you not be expected to stay updated on news, but you would be prevented from it.

I like popsicles because they are light in that they don't feel like I'm filling my stomach, which is an issue I have related to a chronic condition. They may not necessarily be low-calorie, but they take a while to consume, which may help if the point is to delay consumption enough to pass a craving. I usually grab normal ones, but they have sugar-free ones that may reduce the calorie count.

Making it a revolver seems excessive. It could be a single shot pistol. Make it bolt action for more drama and time to really make a serious decision.