The ever-widening political divide, which I have observed both in the abstract and in family/friend relationships, is something that I could easily see spelling the end of US democracy. I'm dead serious, and this (well-reasoned) post does nothing to ease my concerns.
I have been particularly anxious about one bit also mentioned in this post -- the upcoming Moore v. Harper ruling that the Supreme Court has added to their docket. It seems that the court's intent is to legitimize the "independent state legislature" theory, which would give state legislatures unchecked power to control the process (and, in turn, the outcomes) of their states' federal elections.
And by unchecked I mean exactly that. It relies on some ambiguous wording in the federal constitution (and interprets it to imply the word "only" where that word is not actually present) to bar state courts from having a say over any of the state legislature's election laws, and it would bar the state's governors from vetoing any such laws. In effect, if a state legislature decides to overrule their state's federal election outcome and appoint their own electors, etc, it would be perfectly legal and entirely un-challengeable for them to do so.
This, in effect, means that US democracy, at least in federal elections (this fringe legal theory does not apply to state laws dictating state elections), will have failed. It doesn't matter who you support - without free and fair elections, there is no democracy. (And of course, the winning side will just say "but there was fraud," and when that fails to be proven they can fall back on, "but actually we're a republic, not a democracy," and rely on their highly-polarized-and-then-gerrymandered states to continue backing them, because hey, we'd rather have single party rule than by ruled by the other side, right?)
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that 2020 was the last time that we'll have even a semblance of a free and fair presidential election, at least for a generation or two. From here out, I expect to see the winning party continue to dismantle the engine of whatever remaining democratic processes stand in the way of being able to reap the rewards of controlling all three branches of federal government. Though I suspect they'd rather burn most of it down and keep only the parts that allow them to tighten their hold on power at the state level.
I wish I could see a way out of this crisis. But all I see is the smokescreen of a culture war that distracts everyone from what's really at stake.
I wonder, without a functioning democracy, what kind of mandate they think they would have to assert authority over others. What would then stop the rest of the population from considering them tyrants and either ignoring their laws or overthrowing them by force? Americans living in states heavily-gerrymandered via REDMAP would seem to have a duty to openly reject any laws passed by such legislatures.
I think it's fair to say that believing in a "functioning US democracy" is akin to believing in Santa Claus.
There has never been a functioning US democracy, for at least as long as I've been alive (50+ years). Instead, the US political system can best be described as an oligarchy that catters to corporate power. The mechanism that constitutes the backbone of this oligarchy does not change, regardless of which political party "rules".
I'm no fan of the system we have, and I agree that it's dysfunctional at best, but my view is that the only thing worse than a two-party system is a single-party system. All of the problems we have with the power structure of the current US system would only be amplified if one party gains full, long-term control of the federal government.
Assuming that there continues to be a system in which I can personally operate, I'm hoping to focus my efforts around promoting positive electoral reform ideas in whatever increments can be gained. Things like ranked-choice voting, campaign finance reform, fair representation laws to counter gerrymandering, etc. My dream would be to see the (de-facto) two-party system turn into a (functioning) multi-party system within my lifetime, with a greater number of smaller parties, better-representing those who voted for them, and who must form coalitions with other parties rather than enacting change unilaterally in winner-take-all scenarios.
Of course, for any of that to work, we need a media environment that isn't constantly amplifying the extremes, and a general populace that is more resilient to extreme forms of propaganda, radicalization, and manipulation.
The same thing that is splitting the US split Rome. It was inevitable since 1965 and the policies from then were probably an inevitable part of people naturally seeking power through coercion.
Having a "brutalist" aesthetic is called out in its README as part of the design philosophy.
Brutalist is a bit of an acquired taste. There are at least a couple different schools of brutalism (this one seems to line up with more of a 90s web aesthetic), but I like to think of it as a kind of intentional ugliness that allows designers to emphasize practicality. You're there to participate in the content, not the pretty boxes around the content. (I dunno if I'm explaining it well or not.)
I feel like just a few margins would still keep it "brutalist" (e.g. using HN as a reference, which is often labeled as an example) and improve it a bunch.
It's a shame really. I bet GP would never say something so cruel to OP's face, but somehow when it's just words on a screen folks lose all sense of empathy and civility.
Not only that but OP makes a vague statement and doesn’t know the details of this case. I bet OP is a frantic Trump supporter and is blind to any criticism of Trump.
Let’s remind him:
The USA is built on immigrants and that’s what made this country successful in the first place. Nearly everyone in this country is an immigrant or a direct descendent of immigrants except for the native Americans who are the only non immigrants in this country.
Second, this country would not survive without the work of immigrants or foreign workers. And if those foreign workers would not have a path to citizenship they would go some other place. I work with brilliant Indian IT workers on various visas for work, and if there is no path to citizenship for them then the incentive to work for the US is very small. All of them use their brains, taxes and spend most of their earnings in the US economy. Imagine what blow to the US Economy would be if they all left to some other place...
In reality it’s not anti-immigration that is a bigger issue than racism and bigotry
The native Americans had numerous little nations. Those nations were mostly destroyed by immigration. There was lots of fighting and death, and a hostile cultural change, and property seizure. Individual immigrants could be brilliant and hard-working and friendly, but then they voted for leaders who did terrible things to the native Americans.
In these cases, no. There is no substantial difference. It's the same situation, with people of an incompatible culture showing up in large numbers and then expecting to control society.
It never goes well for the population already there.
Then why have any immigration laws at all? If every possible immigrant is a positive contribution.
But… if some are a drain on your limited resources, unhealthy competition for your most vulnerable, or just plain dangerous to your values, then you need immigration laws.
Which is what pretty much every country on earth has concluded. Even the poorest.
Literally nobody is arguing that there ought to be no immigration laws at all. But obviously we can treat the families of natural born citizens better without completely letting the whole system fall to anarchy.
Why mentioned illegal immigration? That should be illegal in the first place. What Trump does is temporarily suspend ALL immigration.
There's a drain on limited resources but the idea in America was to attract all the talent and this resulted brain drain in other places, which for a US was a winning point. So, maybe this is a good thing, for other countries??
And let me remind you the real reason the limited resources are being drained the most: the rich eschew their taxes through tax heavens and what not. It is easy to blame it on immigrants to move the attention away from the tax loopholes and other shenanigans the super rich are doing.
Doesn't really answer your questions, but I'd point out that it's possible that we only hear about these suicides precisely _because_ they are from professions that tend to produce high-profile celebrities. I'd counter your apparent correlation with the fact that apparently suicide among doctors is extremely high:
It could be true that "the wiring in the brain that makes people creative" increases the risk of depression while also being true that there are other things that increase it too.
Your comment also implies that whatever that wiring is, doctors don't have it, and I don't know if that is an assumption we should make.
When modeling was done for the Kuwait oil fires, there were two opposing expectations. One was that the fires would cause a kind of "year without a summer" similar to the Tambora eruption in 1815. The other was that the smoke would affect local weather conditions and be rained out within a week. In retrospect, we know that the latter proved most accurate.
But from what I understand, the crucial difference between the two models was how high the smoke would go, and as such the gap between the two models is actually a lot closer than the outcomes would imply. Had the conditions (weather, geography, etc) been ripe for more "self-lofting" of particulates, far more of them may have made it as far as the stratosphere, at which point they would stay in the atmosphere for far longer and would spread much further, without any weather patterns at that altitude to accelerate their return to the surface.
Most forest fires don't create strong enough firestorms (if they do at all) to funnel material high enough to have an effect -- most of the ash falls back down in a matter of weeks (even sooner if it gets rained out of the atmosphere). I'd compare nuclear blast firestorms with volcanic eruptions -- we do have a record of eruptions funneling material high enough into the troposphere and stratosphere to have a noticeable, longer-term effect on the climate (over the subsequent months and years).
