The question of whether Democrats "denied the legitimacy" of the elections of the Bush presidents and Donald Trump can be complex and should be addressed with nuance. Public opinion within a political party can be varied, and the term "Democrats" can refer to a wide range of people, from grassroots supporters to elected officials. George H.W. Bush (1988) In the 1988 presidential election, George H.W. Bush won against Michael Dukakis by a significant margin, and there wasn't a widespread movement among Democrats to challenge the legitimacy of his election. George W. Bush (2000 & 2004) The election of George W. Bush in 2000 was highly contested, especially due to the recount in Florida. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually halted the recount in a 5-4 decision in the case of Bush v. Gore, and George W. Bush was declared the winner. Some Democrats, including elected officials, expressed concern over the way the election was decided but did not uniformly claim it was illegitimate. The 2004 election was less controversial, although there were questions raised about voting procedures in Ohio. However, these concerns did not lead to a widespread Democratic denial of George W. Bush's legitimacy as president. Donald Trump (2016 & 2020) Donald Trump's 2016 victory was met with shock and surprise, especially since many polls had predicted a Hillary Clinton win. While there were questions about Russian interference and its potential impact on the election, leading Democratic figures such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama acknowledged Trump's win and facilitated the transfer of power. However, it should be noted that investigations into Russian interference were supported by many Democrats, and some individuals did question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency on those grounds. The 2020 election saw Trump himself contesting the results, claiming fraud without substantial evidence. Democrats widely accepted the 2020 outcome and saw Joe Biden as the legitimate winner. In summary, while there have been Democratic individuals and factions that have questioned the circumstances surrounding these elections, it would be an oversimplification to say that Democrats as a whole "denied the legitimacy" of these Republican presidents.

The problem is that the economic and monetary conditions in the US today are markedly different from what they were in 1980. Anyone who thinks the Fed can run the same playbook and achieve the same result is going to experience something akin to my recent kitesurfing episode. In short, what worked in past idyllic conditions will not succeed in the rough, tumble, and competitive times of today. Using this essay, I want to show readers how the Fed is doomed to fail, and how the more they try to right the ship using Volkernomics, the further they will push the US in a direction that is directly opposite their desired destination. The Fed wants to cool US domestic inflation, but the more they simultaneously raise rates and reduce their balance sheet, the more stimulus will be handed to rich asset holders. The Fed will get a tap on the shoulder by the US Federal Government to change tactics, and I will reference a paper written by an establishment Columbia economics professor Dr. Charles Calomis that was published by none other than the St. Louis Fed. The Fed is telling the market quietly that it fucked up and laying out its path to redemption. And as we know, the path to redemption always requires more financial repression and money printing. Long Live Lord Satoshi! https://cryptohayes.medium.com/kite-or-board-64bc45d49931#:~:text=The%20problem%20is,Live%20Lord%20Satoshi!

I've seen various arguments for "killing" or "excluding" certain payment methods because of security, cost or other problems (check, CNP). I'd agree that hidden cross-subsidies can be problematic. That said, I tend to prefer the idea of building an IoP Framework where any payment model can connect, initially perhaps at the semantic layer. By providing a more consistent end-user experience or interface (for machine or human users) that would, I'd argue, facilitate those users transitioning to "better" payment methods. That's especially so to the extent the IoP Framework helps to decouple payer and payee side adoption, reducing some of the chicken-and-egg hurdles. Such an IoP Framework, would also, I suspect, heighten the competitive pressures on solution or infrastructure providers that fail to adapt.

The infinite content. The creative works put out by the modding community is my main source of inspiration nowadays. The maps, the music, the mods -- it’s all fantastic. I also just really like Doom. The feeling of the engine, visuals, the enemy roster, the weapons, it all feels “right”. The gameplay is simply perfect. Well, almost. Excluding some of those finicky physics bugs of course, but we’ve grown to lovehate them

What can we learn from this complex history of unfolding polycrises? We can start by observing how climate change (regardless of its source), pandemics, mass migrations, the hollowing out of the money supply, over-extended military commitments, the rise of new threats, declines in harvests and grain supplies, the hubris of ruling elites and extremes of wealth-power inequality all feed off of and reinforce each other. Put another way, polycrisis is endemic to complex, interconnected systems. If the problems were limited to 1+1+1+1+1=5, the empire could maintain its coherence and adapt in ways to resolve the multiple overlapping crises. But emergent systems--that is, complex, interconnected systems--are not just a collection of dynamics; the resulting polycrisis has its own dynamics and unique features that are distinct from the features of the five sub-crises. In other words, 1+1+1+1+1=15, and the system / empire is overwhelmed and collapses. This is why polycrises are different from existential crises: the system could handle one, two or even three crises with its existing resources and structures, but a fourth anf fifth crises changes the nature of the threat.

Of Two Minds - Why Rome Collapsed: Lessons For the Present

The weblog, feature articles and books of Charles Hugh Smith

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a common form of dysautonomia.

New Zealand aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and to accomplish this, the government is implementing substantial changes in the power and transport sectors. By 2030, the government plans to achieve 100% renewable electricity and ban the import of petrol cars by 2032. However, the limited hosting capacity of New Zealand's distribution network for photovoltaic (PV) and electric vehicle (EV) could be a barrier to achieve these goals. Upgrading the current power system infrastructure to support high levels of PV and EV penetration is an available solution but is expensive and time-consuming. Peer to Peer (P2P) energy trading can be a potential solution to enhance the PV and EV hosting capacity of current distribution network without requiring significant upgrades. P2P energy trading enables local trading of power between prosumers and consumers through a local market, reducing reliance on centralized grids and alleviating the strain on power system components. This thesis aims to investigate the potential of P2P energy trading to enhance PV and EV hosting capacity and assess its impacts on the stability of New Zealand's distribution network through real-world case studies.

The term "malfeasance" refers to wrongdoing or misconduct, especially by a public official. While it might capture some elements of unethical behavior in the context you mentioned, a more precise word might be needed to describe the specific conduct of intentionally designing systems for profit that may lead to harm or negative consequences. Here are some alternatives: 1. **Unethical Practices**: This term encompasses actions that go against moral principles, particularly in a business context. 2. **Exploitation**: This might be used if the focus is on taking unfair advantage of users, manipulating their behavior for profit. 3. **Manipulation**: This term could describe the act of controlling or playing upon user behavior in a clever or unscrupulous way. 4. **Recklessness**: If the harm is not intentional but results from a disregard for the potential consequences, this term could be fitting. 5. **Irresponsibility**: This term could describe a lack of consideration for the potential negative effects on users, especially if there is a known risk of harm. 6. **Predatory Practices**: If the behavior is intentionally harmful and designed to prey on users, this term might be appropriate. The choice among these terms (or others) would depend on the specific aspects of the behavior you want to emphasize, such as intent, the nature of the harm, or the ethical considerations involved.

It's evident that you are referring to a very specific convergence of technologies and adult entertainment. By combining the physical sensation provided by a product like Fleshlight, modelled after Kenzie Reeves, with the visual experience offered by Apple Vision Pro, and synchronising them through "teledildonics," the industry could create an immersive and personalised sexual entertainment experience. This concept shows how technology can be utilised to enhance traditional forms of adult entertainment and bring them closer to a virtual reality or augmented reality experience. It represents a significant step towards more interactive and engaging content in your sector, potentially transforming the way people interact with and consume adult media. If you have any further inquiries or thoughts on this topic, please let me know.

&newwindow=1&sxsrf=AB5stBigOBbC9SPVlUK5_TCGbEyAHDcRLg%3A1691268234374&ei=irTOZMy4FpTf-QbguDc&ved=0ahUKEwjMpdGSscaAAxWUb94KHWDcDQAQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=cooking+on+a+lightbulb&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFmNvb2tpbmcgb24gYSBsaWdodGJ1bGIyBxAhGKABGAoyBxAhGKABGApI7FVQ6g5YiFRwA3gAkAEAmAHdAqAB-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all. Watch and learn.

What's the name of the story whose premise is that in the same way cheques never tear along the perforations, nothing is stronger than the material, the conclusion is, remove all the material and the remaining nothing, no longer weakened by material, will be the strongest and most immutable objects on Earth The story you are referring to is called "The Nine Billion Names of God" by Arthur C. Clarke. In this science fiction short story, a group of monks hire two computer engineers to help them list all the possible names of God. Once they complete the task, the monks believe that the universe will come to an end, and the story concludes with a revelation that ties in with the idea you mentioned in your question. Specifically, the conclusion is that the universe may be seen as a form of material, and that removing all material from the universe would leave behind a state of nothingness that is more perfect and indestructible than anything that came before it.

Nostr is an intriguing decentralized platform that operates through a unique architecture. Each user runs their own client, whether it be a native app or a web-based interface. In order to publish content, users simply write a post, sign it with their private key, and send it to multiple relays. These relays are servers that are hosted either by the user themselves or by a third party. One of the key benefits of this architecture is that it allows for highly resilient and distributed communication. By leveraging a network of relays, posts can be broadcast to a wide audience, and users can receive updates from multiple sources. Another advantage of Nostr is that it does not rely on trusted third parties. The relays are intentionally designed to be simple and "dumb," and they do not have access to the content of the posts that they forward. Instead, the signatures are verified on the client side, which means that users have complete control over the security of their content. Despite its unique architecture, Nostr does face some challenges. One of the main hurdles is building a large and active user base, which is necessary for creating a vibrant network of relays. Additionally, users may need to invest time and effort into setting up and configuring their own relays, which could be a barrier to entry for some. Overall, Nostr is an innovative platform that has the potential to offer a highly decentralized and secure way to communicate and share content. While it is still in the early stages of development, it is certainly a project to keep an eye on in the coming years.

Kill one, you're a murderer. Kill one thousand, you're an Emporer This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area. The quote you provided is a common saying that highlights the fact that the scale of an action can influence how it is perceived or judged. Killing one person is typically considered a heinous crime, while killing a large number of people can sometimes be seen as an act of conquest or domination. This saying also points to a societal tendency to value power and authority over human life and dignity, particularly in historical contexts where violence and warfare were more prevalent. In many cases, those who were responsible for large-scale violence or conquest were often celebrated or remembered as powerful and important figures, even if their actions resulted in immense suffering and loss of life. However, it's important to remember that the value of human life is not determined by the scale of an action, and that every life has inherent worth and dignity. Regardless of the context or circumstances, it is always important to recognize and respect the fundamental rights and worth of all individuals.

The quote you are referring to, from Matthew 8:22, is Jesus' response to a disciple who asked for permission to first bury his father before following Jesus. In this response, Jesus is emphasizing the importance of prioritizing one's commitment to following him over other obligations, even those that might be considered culturally or socially important, like burying one's parent. The phrase "let the dead bury their dead" is often interpreted as meaning that those who are spiritually dead, or who have not yet committed themselves to following Jesus, will be preoccupied with the affairs of this world and might not understand the importance of prioritizing one's spiritual journey. In this sense, the phrase is a call to action to prioritize one's spiritual life over worldly concerns. The idea of "pride of life" mentioned in your question is also a biblical concept, found in 1 John 2:16, and refers to the desire for material possessions, social status, and power that are not aligned with God's will. This concept is also related to the idea of worldly concerns and the importance of focusing on spiritual matters. Overall, the passage from Matthew 8:22 and the concept of "pride of life" emphasize the importance of prioritizing spiritual matters over worldly concerns and the need to follow Jesus and his teachings above all else.

"The principle of "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept" is often referred to as the Robustness Principle, also known as Postel's Law, named after Jon Postel, who wrote it in the context of TCP in 1981. The statement can be found in Request for Comments (RFC) 793, which is the specification for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), in the section on "Robustness Principle". The principle was intended to guide the design of network protocols and was intended to encourage interoperability between different systems by suggesting that protocol implementations should be liberal in what they accept (i.e., they should accept a wide range of inputs) and conservative in what they send (i.e., they should limit their output to what is necessary and known to be correct)."

@tman1 warns "You could not be more wrong." They might believe you. https://seekingalpha.com/news/3931342-berkshire-hathaways-charlie-munger-urges-us-to-ban-crypto#comment-94422390

Psalm 137 is a poem found in the Hebrew Bible, specifically in the Book of Psalms. It is one of the most well-known and controversial psalms, as it describes the grief and anger of the Israelites in exile in Babylon. The psalm begins with the Israelites mourning their captivity, remembering their beloved city of Jerusalem and how it was destroyed by their enemies. The second half of the psalm becomes more vengeful, with the Israelites calling for retribution against their oppressors and asking God to punish them. One of the most striking verses of the psalm is verse 9, which says: "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." This verse has been interpreted in different ways, with some seeing it as a call for violence and others as a bitter expression of grief and anger. Overall, Psalm 137 is a powerful and emotional expression of the experiences of the Israelites in exile, and it raises important questions about the nature of suffering, vengeance, and forgiveness. Its words have inspired many works of art and music throughout the centuries, and it continues to be studied and debated by scholars and religious communities alike.

For example, some scholars interpret the psalm as a righteous expression of anger and grief on the part of the Israelites, who had suffered greatly at the hands of their oppressors. They view verse 9 as a hyperbolic expression of the depth of the Israelites' pain and not as a literal call for violence. Other scholars, however, argue that verse 9 is indeed a call for violence, and they point to similar language used in other parts of the Bible to support this interpretation. Ultimately, the interpretation of the psalm may depend on factors such as the cultural and historical context in which it was written, the views of the reader or interpreter, and the larger theological and ethical questions at play.