Something I've been wondering lately is how big of a blind spot I have from being habitually online. Like, I'll read the news, and I'll read political discussions on HN and r/politics and r/conservative and Twitter, and I'll try to get a sense of what everyone is thinking, but unfortunately I don't think that's possible. The posters on these sites all have one thing in common: they're into politics and current events.
Having a chance to talk to more people in meatspace this year, it was a surprise to find out how many people have only a passing interest in politics, but still vote. Like, the average user here probably reads 5+ news articles a day, but there are plenty of people IRL that will read one a month, or maybe just skim a headline. They don't really keep up-to-date with the race. They mostly vote by feel and pragmaticism.
People always talk about "shy" Trump voters, but what makes me more curious are voters that match the description above. If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.
I live in rural Illinois. Surrounded by people west coast elites would consider "simple". They aren't voting for a candidate because he's tall and confident.
They have 401ks. Own small businesses. Have Mortgages. Send their kids to public schools. Budget for their families. Hell, even farmers are trading commodities and are very familiar with the markets. There are so many legitimate factors that go into who they vote for.
Illegal immigration? Yes - they are upset by people whose first act on entering a country is to break the law.
I say that as a legal immigrant to the US whose parents were legal immigrants to the UK. It took me over 18 months to get my green card approved and years for my parents to obtain a British ancestry visa so they could enter and work.
As far as hate towards transgender people, it takes energy to hate. Most people (who don't have trans loved ones) simply don't care and are upset that they are compelled to care.
No...you get ostracized or cancelled in many social circles for indicating that you might support Trump or Republican policies. Even mild ostracization would make people hesitate to voice their opinions, never mind the level it is currently.
This is, largely, because a lot of republicans have a difficult time expressing their views without using tools like racism and misogyny.
Just take a look at the Trump rallies. Even if you agree with 100% of Trump's policies, look at how he talks about women. Could you repeat what he says in the workplace? No, you'd get fired. Not for being republican, but for sexual harassment.
If you were able to support anti-immigration policies without calling entire classes of people "garbage", then maybe people wouldn't get mad at you. But for a lot of republicans, they just can't do that. They don't know how to word their policy support without saying something incredibly offensive.
Or, for example, it's one thing if you're pro-life. But a lot of republicans will use words like "slut" and "whore", and even President Trump wants to "punish women". Again, this just isn't acceptable speech in most social situations.
Until your average republican and, hell, our president, figure out how to address these topics without being offensive, people will get offended.
Of course she doesn't. But, can she express that without saying it in a way that says "I hate immigrants"?
This is what I'm pointing out. Having republican beliefs is fine. Can republicans voice those beliefs without bigotry? Often no. For Trump, certainly not. For many, they can't either.
If you just say "Trump addresses immigrant better", then okay. If you say "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, we have to clean up our country" then... yeah you're getting pulled into HR.
Why does this not lead you to believe that he dislikes immigrants who are criminal, dangerous, or eat house pets? Why do you think it represents his attitudes towards all immigrants?
In reality, when Trump talks about immigrants he talks about illegal and problematic individuals. On top of that, he also talks about not immigrants a lot.
For some reason you're willing to drop the context.
He's talking about people coming through the border without being vetted, who are dangerous to the country.
Do you think that people should be able to come into the country freely without any vetting at all?
He was pointing out a specific problem, maybe your imagination turned that into the much more general "all immigrants are bad" when he's never actually said or suggested anything of the kind?
This may be news to you, but human language is often nuanced and indirect. It is a perfectly reasonable short-hand to say that he hates immigrants when his political career was launched on painting them as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.
This kind of "but he didn't actually say the word hate" pedantry is unconvincing.
First of all, what makes you think he doesn't hate his wife? He has treated every woman in his life, including Melania, like trash.
But you're right, even in that speech, he is pretty explicit about which kinds of immigrants he doesn't like; the ones from south of the border. He doesn't seem to have a problem with white immigrants. Thing is, I think it's true that racism isn't close to being the thing driving the political realignment since he came on the scene, but that doesn't mean it's false that he's racist. Both things can be true.
I've heard Trump say many, many vile things about women. Certainly, almost everything Trump has said in the context of women cannot be repeated in a professional environment. If I talk like Trump at work, I am liable to get fired. And this doesn't even touch on him being convicted of rape by a jury of his peers.
He's also said vile things about immigrants and even naturalized American citizens. He's peddled propaganda about Obama not being a true American, undoubtedly on account of his skin color. He's questioned Kamala's blackness in very offensive ways, too. Not only does he speak poorly about immigrants, he treats black and Latino Americans like garbage. Sometimes his campaign outright calls them garbage.
After a certain point, Trump's misogyny and racism is undeniable. When people do deny it, I either favorably think they are ignorant to all he has said or their brains are detaching from reality. I would hope it's the former, in which case that no longer works because I've just informed you. If it is the latter, I recommend therapy to begin to address the delusions you have formed.
> Could you articulate exactly how these are lies?
Sure. The "every woman in his life" part is a stupid statement to make. It's a complete suicide for one's credibility.
The comments about him not liking immigrants from south of the border (Mexicans? South Americans? Anyone who comes in through the southern border?) are also made up. He doesn't like illegal immigrants and is very explicit about that -- who would like criminals after all. None of it has to do with ethnicity and there's no evidence you can show me to claim otherwise, since it doesn't exist.
> I've heard Trump say many, many vile things about women
Okay, although not really relevant to what I responded to. Besides, without having examples of what you're referring to, I can only say that "vile" is subjective, and saying "vile" things is different from doing vile things. We've said all kinds of "vile" things about women in our friend groups, just like the women have said "vile" things about me and my buddies in their friend groups. This is normal, and if you claim to be above all that -- cool. Find friends who align more with your values, but don't think for a second you're better than me and mine. That will be decided by our actions and accomplishments.
> Certainly, almost everything Trump has said in the context of women cannot be repeated in a professional environment.
Indefensible position, no idea why you'd choose these words. If you said "some of the things" instead of "almost everything", you might have a case. Even then, what does it matter? In professional environments, you know what you can or can't say. In other environments, it's the same.
> And this doesn't even touch on him being convicted of rape by a jury of his peers.
Word against word about an event hypothetically happening in the 90s. There was no evidence, and this is lawfare. I know you haven't read the court documents, but you could check them out.
> A bunch of nonsensical accusations without direct quotes or context to anything
You could try providing some context on what you're talking about. A barrage of mindless accusations doesn't count for much, no matter the number. It just tells me you're repeating someone else's words.
I'm not required to, and will not be giving, any examples on the vile things Trump has said about women or minorities because you already know them. You're doing that fun thing conservatives do where they play stupid. You should be careful, if you play stupid long enough people might just think you're stupid.
> He doesn't like illegal immigrants and is very explicit about that -- who would like criminals after all
I said it elsewhere but I'll say it again - this is just plausible deniability.
Similarly, Hitler never hated Jewish people. He hated greedy business owners. After all, who doesn't hate the greedy?
Trump has explicitly stated he plans to remove protections for recent immigrants who are here LEGALLY and he plans to undo naturalized citizenship. You cannot claim he only hates "illegal" immigrants.
Regardless, that doesn't even touch on the incredibly racist comments he's made about Obama and Kamala. His issue is anyone vaguely brown and not a man, which is typical for a republican.
I'm not gonna hand hold through your delusions. Point blank, what you're writing is at odds with reality. I would respect conservatives much more if they weren't such cowards, but they typically are. These days, the cowardice and shame of conservatives has gotten so severe I have to ask leftist about Trump's policies. Seriously, conservatives won't even utter the policies they support because of the supreme shame they feel.
You can either admit Trump has said, often, many racist, sexist, transphobic, and otherwise offensive things, or you can deny it, in which case Trump is still the same person and now you're also a liar. So you can only hurt your position and, in fact, republican ideology as a whole by doing so. A lot of people already believe you to be liars - certainly, you shouldn't try so hard to prove them right.
> If you say "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, we have to clean up our country" then... yeah you're getting pulled into HR.
Trump was just repeating the same thing that many other people heard, a resident at a town council meeting in Springfield, Ohio claimed that some group of migrants there had eaten someone's pets.
Was it true? Who knows? People tend to repeat a lot of things they hear but haven't verified themselves. For example in that same debate, David Muir falsely repeated the lie that crime was down nationally. Do we take David Muir to HR?
That kind of obvious logical inconsistency, coupled with the assumption of moral authority (which for whatever reason seems to be the subtext for so many of these conversations), rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
So then Trump didn't do his own research and will pretty much just believe anything? Wow, it sounds like you think Trump is an idiot.
I don't understand this line of thinking from conservatives. When Trump is criticized on the things he himself has said people will argue we shouldn't listen to Trump, because he is stupid and he lies. So he's stupid and he lies... and yet you support him?
Either he is a strong leader, in which case we should take what he says at face value, or he is a fraudster, in which case we should expect misinformation. You can't have both. Talking down about the person you support reflects very poorly on you.
> David Muir falsely repeated the lie that crime was down nationally
Crime IS down nationally.
And you understand this isn't the type of thing that would get you fired from a job?
While people on the left may often be wrong, they aren't wrong in a way that can be interpreted as racism, sexism, or homophobia. This won't get you sent to HR - and that's the difference.
Conservatives have a really hard time supporting their position without using tools which are unacceptable in professional environment. If you don't support immigration, then great! Now defend that without racist rhetoric. Trump can't do it, so if that's your role model then you better find someone else.
the men in your life are dishonest with you. You will never know what people really think (and no one will be able to explain why to you because you won’t hear them)
I absolutely hear them, but they're incapable of voicing their beliefs without bigotry.
You can say, for example, that there are challenges to gender-neutral bathrooms. Okay that's fine. You can't say "those dirty pervy <slurs> are molesting our little girls!". Do you see how that's now bigotry?
How many republicans are able to do 1 without ever touching 2? Very, very few. Certainly Trump can't, and Cruz can't either. If those are your role models then it's no wonder you can't express your beliefs.
In liberal strongholds (like SF, where I live), many conservatives will hide their political views for fear of social alienation. I've experienced this directly, when someone I'd recently met sort of sheepishly/obliquely brought up that they supported Trump. That fear is warranted: I really had less interest in developing a closer friendship with that person after learning that. It was especially jarring to me that this person was a non-white woman, and I just cannot understand how someone can support someone whose rhetoric demeans her on two axes.
I expect the same happens in conservative strongholds too, with liberals self-censoring. I know I wouldn't be comfortable openly discussing my (leftist) political views in, say, suburban Texas.
I really think this conventional wisdom is drastically overblown. Especially in places like this, which are San Francisco liberal adjacent.
Yes, it is not surprising that people who are in the minority in a place with a strong majority viewpoint are less excited to rock the boat. But very few places are like San Francisco.
You were respectably drifting away from your elitism in the first two paragraphs.
Then the last paragraph shows you have a long way to go.
> If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.
I live in a rural working class region. I have beers with these guys all the time. They're my best friends and I'm the odd coder guy that works from home.
They do not care about the surface level qualities, besides the fact that he's hilarious. They might not read articles but they listen to podcasts a lot on their commutes at 4AM in the morning.
They don't want war with Russia, they're pissed about the COVID stuff, and they aren't happy with the price of gas.
Pretty much the entire reason I stopped being a loyal democrat. It’s hard to call the other team a bunch of fadcists when your own party set up hotlines to dime out your neighbors for having a picnic in their backyard. Or close your kids school for two years. Or destroy your community by shutting everything down (except protests, but only for certain topics). Or threatening your job unless you take a medical procedure. Etc…
And let’s not forget the massive economic damage caused by all that. This election is basically the result of democrats absolutely horrible covid policies.
This election is honestly vindicating. At least I can know I’m not going crazy when I scratch my head about the massive double speak from democrats. Forgive me for speaking so crude but my former “tribe” flushed their entire set of values down the toilet and went all in on Covid.
Bodily choice? Nope. Get a shot or loose your job.
Deaf or have language issues? Hope you enjoy not being able to read lips. Fuck you though. Only Covid mattered.
Education? Nope. Close schools for two years. Prevent kids from going to the only sanctuary they have from abusive care givers. Fuck kids. Only Covid mattered.
99%? Nope. Transfer massive amounts of wealth from poor to rich. But hey at least I’m privileged enough I can work from home.
Small business? Nope. Close small businesses and celebrate ordering all your shit on Amazon (to be delivered by poor working class, expendable delivery people so you can stay comfortably isolated working from home at your large house and not get exposed to those deadly deadly Covid germs)
Science? Nope. Almost none of the covid interventions had any science supporting them. We were literally running an uncontrolled experiment that nobody consented to.
Data? Nope. We will actively suppress people who take public data showing Covid isn’t as bad as portrayed. Let’s also treat deaths with and from COVID as the same.
Elderly care? Nope. Lock them in their care home and let them die completely alone. But hey, zoom calls, right? Oh yeah and when grandma dies, no funeral for him! Only George Floyd can have a funeral.
Minority’s? Fuck them. Only Covid matters
Community? Close it all down. Fuck them. Only Covid matters.
Anti-authority? Naw. Call this 800 number and dime out your neighbors BBQ. Cheer on when the police arrest somebody for sitting on a park bench or going onto the beach. Cheer on authorities towing cars parked at trail heads. Cheer on people getting fired for not electing a medical procedure.
Naw… these assholes deserve the loss. They brought it on themselves when they sold their souls to politically driven covid hysteria.
It blew mind how so many people I thought were in “my tribe” could so rapidly turn against virtually every single value I thought we shared. The real moral is fuck tribalism and if you are scratching your head wondering why Harris lost. This is why.
Agreed down the line. My parents are actually Deaf and had a tough time.
When COVID happened in March 2020, I talked to my Trump supporting cousin and she said it was being blown out of proportion because there was an election coming up.
I dismissed it and even expected it from the Trump side to say that.
But now I realize they were totally right.
It just goes to show that party politics has nothing to do with values- just does my tribe have power or not.
Glad to see there are some of us that still care about these basic American values, and willing to change our minds in defense of these values.
> I live in a rural working class region. I have beers with these guys all the time. They're my best friends and I'm the odd coder guy that works from home.
This is what America needs more of — people from different worlds just having beers together, and realizing that we’re all normal people trying to get by.
Do you know of anyone who can articulate a compelling case of why Trump would make a good president? I’m left-leaning but I want to understand where others are coming from.
I tried to make one earlier. I also consider myself left-leaning.
1. Don't want war with Russia. Trump's presidency was relatively low-war. He's also expressed a great desire to end the Ukraine conflict. If the Donbas and Crimea is the price of avoiding Nuclear war, I'm on board. The moment that switched me to deciding on Trump was when Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala.
2. Protecting kids. I don't think kids can consent to medical gender transition. It amounts to state sanctioned child abuse. I have kids. Once you're 18 go ahead do what you want.
3. Illegal immigration. I lived in South America for 4 years. My wife is Colombian, we just moved back to the States. Legally. It was a long and arduous process to come in legally. That should be made easier (something Musk at least has espoused) and coming in illegally should be made harder. I know quite a few illegal immigrants and they are being abused by the urban elite to build their summer homes. They're not living a better life and they're stuck here.
4. Federal bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy has become a parasite on our progress. Just look at what's happening with SpaceX. This ties in with the immigration thing. The problems we have with immigration are actually that the lazy and corrupt bureaucracy takes years to process something that should take 2 hours. (and does! even in "third world" countries like Colombia)
5. Trust. Everyone who hates Trump likes to talk about how much he makes stuff up. But he's authentic. Meaning he rarely reads from a script. He talks off the cuff. He's not controlled. I'm tired of having politicians that basically hate half the country and think we're dumb because we don't like to listen to their corpo-bureaucrat speeches
> Donbas and Crimea is the price of avoiding Nuclear war
On the contrary, the risk of nuclear war increases when Putin gets Donbas and Crimea. Because what he wants next will be even more valuable to nations with nukes.
Appeasing sounds great but at some point you run out of other people's countries.
Russia is gettin North Korean troops to fight for them because they are losing so bad, but Russia is also an aggressive superpower hell-bent on invading even more countries with far better defenses than Ukraine.
This isn't accounting for Russia's disastrous demographics problem. The biggest reason they are moving so slowly is because they can build new artillery, but are demographically forced to do everything they can to minimize casualties.
It also isn't accounting for Russia trying to get a permanent peace deal 2 months into the conflict. That's not the behavior of a country bent on conquest.
Finally, I can't take people seriously when they are basically asserting that Russia believed they could take over all of Eastern Europe with just ~200,000 troops. When Ukraine changed from regime toppling to an actual war, Russia was caught with their pants down. They had to hire Wagner and draft prisoners to buy time to start pushing soldiers through training. If they'd been planning some large invasion campaign, they would have started serious troop training a handful of years prior and have millions of already-trained troops.
It also isn't accounting for Russia trying to get a permanent peace deal 2 months into the conflict. That's not the behavior of a country bent on conquest.
When invading powers think they've prevailed and have their prey over their knee, and attempt to seal their conquest with a treaty -- they always call it a "peace deal".
It's because it's not based on fact. These people (rightly so) hate Putin. But just because you hate Putin does not mean he is capable or intending to be Hitler.
Same actually goes for Trump actually. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's literally Hitler.
As someone who lives in a country neighboring Ukraine, hosted Ukrainian refugees and heard the stories about what is happening in occupied territories directly from escaped friends and relatives, (some of the older ones still remembering stories about nazi occupants), let me tell you one thing: you are massively underestimating Putin. And that is a fact.
What kind of stories do you think the refugees from Donbas are telling in Russia? Did you know that those stories are why this war is ongoing?
I’m asking rhetorical questions because I know you have a biased view on the topic. You’ve long forgotten the humanity of the other side because of the propaganda.
Please do feel free to point us to those stories from “refugees from Donbas”. Also, the Russian cities leveled, Russian families obliterated and Russian children kidnapped - by the Ukrainians. They must be some amazing stories to keep the war going since Donbas is currently pretty much all Russian - controlled.
I see Russian propaganda efforts are still going strong but so easily disproven in this day and age.
The Neville Chamberlain comparison has been used to involve us in every major war since WWII and literally all of them turned out to be total disasters.
So what's your message for the Ukrainians being bombed, their homes destroyed and families killed? What should they do?
Pack up and leave, take refuge in other countries? Just give up and stay under the Russian boot, obey when taken to fight in meat waves against their neighbors?
> Pack up and leave, take refuge in other countries? Just give up and stay under the Russian boot, obey when taken to fight in meat waves against their neighbors?
Like a great, great many things, possibly most things, these options beat a hot war at your home by a wide margin. So, yes? Comparisons to WWII only hold if you honestly believe that this is a full-on war of extermination, but if you believe that, the world should have sent troops ages ago. It isn’t and any horrors of war we see now are just standard fare for war anywhere ever and wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine had forfeited immediately. Instead they’re destroying their country and their people to save the intellectual constructs of their borders and administration. The biosphere would prefer that trade-off reversed.
> obey when taken to fight in meat waves against their neighbors?
> Instead they’re destroying their country and their people to save the intellectual constructs of their borders and administration.
What's happening in the occupied territories is a cultural genocide along with the execution of activists. Everything culturally Ukrainian is stamped out and every time Russians are pushed back from a town, mass graves are uncovered.
To add to that, after a few years the men in the occupied territories are pressed into the Russian army and sent in meat wave attacks westward. For example, the towns in Eastern Donbass, that has been occupied since 2014, are nearly void of male population by now.
Putin himself is already tired of the war. He just doesn't see a way out where he can save the face. He wanted it to be a 3 day campaign, remember? I have doubts Putin is eager to start Ukraine War 2.0
Russia wants a few years of respite, ideally without sanctions and with the Ukraine military stripped to the studs, so that its own military can regroup and finish the job in a few years. Once that happens, the rest of Eastern Europe will be next and the Ukrainians will be first in the meat wave attacks, just like their compatriots from Eastern Donbass in 2022 (it has been occupied by Russia since 2014 and by now the towns there are nearly void of male population).
They literally showed them during the first days of the war.
There was a press conference where they accidentally showed a diagram with arrows continuing through Ukraine into Transnistria, which is Moldova's equivalent of the Donbass.
You have to be very ignorant of geopolitics to think that there aren't more countries like Ukraine that Russia would like to return to their empire.
Some might join voluntarily but many -- like Kazakhstan -- won't without a fight. Unlike Ukraine, most of the others are not conveniently next to Europe and hence will be impractical for western nations to support.
After Ukraine falls, Moldova is next, and then the various -stans will be rolled up in quick succession. This will create a Soviet Union 2.0, which will be a net positive for Russia, and a mixed bag for the rest of the world. It'll likely be a net negative for Europe, which is why they're supporting Ukraine now.
I literally said if he takes Donbas and Crimea, yes that's worth it. You've failed to present any evidence he could take anything else except Transnistria which has already been defacto independent and considered under Russian occupation since 2022.
Russia is halfway to dismantling NATO or at least it making itself irrelevant by refusing to commit, now that an isolationist government is going to be in the US. Considering the growing popularity of the right wing pro-Russian parties in France and Germany, it may not take that long before NATO becomes a non-issue for Russia.
As in copies of official documents with dates and Putin's signature? Of course not.
But if you pay any attention to what's going on in Russia, there's not much doubt. Their TV talks about it and their politicians talk about it non-stop. While civilian economy is winding down and the only jobs that pay decently are in the MIC and the military; kids in grammar schools are being taught how to disassemble assault rifles (and that's in a country with historically paranoid gun controls) and how to hate the enemy (which, for Russia, is every foreign country). Their historic military anniversaries used to be just commemorations, but now they are all-consuming cultural events that last throughout the year, non-stop, as symbols of the military might and glory. They are trying to create a death cult, and have been doing it for the past 10 years, at least.
What do they care about, then? I have no connection with people like you're describing, so anything you can say would be interesting to hear. My understanding is based on the news is the economy, and gun control.
Sure. They care about most of the stuff people have cared about for thousands of years.
They want to grow their families, low prices, government to stay out of their business. They want to grow their side jobs, like contracting or excavating or HVAC. They distrust smarty-pants paper pushers. They work side-by-side with a sudden increase of illegal immigrants.
None of this is simply surface level, at least not more so than any other human being. We're all just humans bro.
Not wanting gas to be expensive, without knowing literally anything about why gas might cost more, is about as surface level as you can get.
What happened with covid? Trump was a complete clown, but they still support him? Sounds again, very, very surface level.
You say they don't care about his height, or his gender maybe, or his race, but if he were a short female minority, that would 100% affect their opinion, even if they didn't understand it or wouldn't admit it. Very surface level no?
I agree, except we're more like 80 years into elites calling everyone else stupid.
Your first sentence is based, if you can't see how following a couple of simple talking points like "herp derp gas is to spensive" isn't anything but surface level, you're actually stupid, because I'm telling you, there is a shitload more to gas than it coming out of the pump at a price someone wants it to be. You can't just vote for cheaper gas, trump isn't an oil well.
I understand you think everyone who voted for Trump is stupid. But it's simply not true.
Also price of gas isn't the only things I mentioned. You hilariously omitted war with Russia, and all the other plausible reasons one might vote for Trump, like making illegal immigration harder than legal immigration, reducing bureaucracy, wanting to cut red tape to go to Mars, lower taxes.
You could assert all these things are somehow superficial, but that doesn't make it true.
I didn't say that at all, I was responding to a commenter talking about their particular friends, who they claimed weren't voting on shallow premises, when the examples they provided were absolutely as shallow as they were trying to claim they weren't.
You went off topic and started defending all trump voters.
It does seem like Russia will continue to push west once they take Ukraine. At this point it seems like this is almost inevitable without US support.
We have a lot of Ukrainian people in Canada and they are mortified by this event. To them, US support was a lifeline. Some friends were literally crying over this turn of events because they’re terrified for their family back home.
If Russia takes Ukraine and is emboldened to continue west, how will this impact the USA? Will you want to remain uninvolved and isolated? Does it really seem safe to allow this to continue?
Or do you think nothing much will happen and this hand wringing is unnecessary? Or perhaps that Russia won’t move further west, or it’s fine that they might?
It strikes me that a lot of Trump’s policy is that of a remarkably uninformed person who struggles to connect dots and anticipate the results of these actions.
Russia invaded Ukraine with ~170,000 troops. When it turned into an actual war instead of a quick regime change, they had to hire Wagner and draft prisoners until they could train up troops to send.
Do you seriously think Russia was going to be able to attack another country if they took over Ukraine? 170,000 wouldn't even be enough to actually hold on to Ukraine (in Kosovo, we needed 1 soldier for every 34 people to preserve peace, that would be over 1 million Russian soldiers in Ukraine to occupy it).
This assertion simply doesn't make any sense to me.
> Do you seriously think Russia was going to be able to attack another country if they took over Ukraine?
I doubted it at first, but historically speaking, this is a completely Russian thing to do. That country has chewed through men like crazy under worse circumstances.
> Or do you think nothing much will happen and this hand wringing is unnecessary?
This. The Neville Chamberlain comparison has been used to involve us in every major war since WWII and literally all of them turned out to be total disasters.
Epstein said it of trump, he is good at real estate and otherwise a complete moron. He said he can't think ahead what might happen with any issue, and if you've been watching him, that should be pretty obvious.
That's why this is so dangerous, he's a con man, and everyone supporting him has bought into the con, because I never see any trump supporter posting a clause that says they will stop supporting him the moment he crosses line x, they just support literally anything he does or will do.
I didn't intend for my post to be about rural vs urban, or smart vs dumb. The point I was trying to make was that some people just aren't interested, no matter their background. You can find these people everywhere, which might explain why Trump gained in almost every county this election, even urban ones.
It's a spectrum of course. The friends you describe sound like they fall somewhere in the middle of caring about politics vs not. My point of discussion is on the people at the low end, as these are likely to swing. People past a certain threshold of attachment have had their votes locked in for years.
No, my friends don't care about politics except that some of them went to vote.
If you went to vote you obviously care about politics at least a little. The idea Trump won because people don't care about politics but then went and voted for him is inherently self contradictory.
That they're simply "attached" to him because he's tall or whatever is obviously elitist and it's exactly this mentality that repulses the people who voted for him, ie the majority of the country.
Imagery, vibes, personality, all of these have powerful effects on people, educated or not.
Few can express how these intangibles impact them, and if they can they are usually won’t say it out loud,
This is why you NEED to run a primary, to debug your campaign. You don’t know how your candidate looks and feels to people in Tennessee, etc until you try it.
Not an American, not a Trump fan - he grosses me out a bit.
But I've come to the realization that both sides have an ugly component that is winning out on online forums. It's the classic tale of the vocal minority controlling the narrative.
So to answer your question, being habitually online, and using that as a basis for your opinions on the world will very much make you vulnerable to a serious blind spot.
The amount of shit-flinging on Reddit, from both sides, is shocking to me as a non-American. That people can espouse so much hate towards their literal neighbours is unreal to me. This country is so divided that I'm not sure how things will be fixed soon. Online has become such a cesspool that it's not possible to sit around the same fire any more.
I like to think that the majority of people are waaaay more moderate than what you might think from looking at social media. And I would encourage anyone to try and interact with more people in meatspace. Don't try and convince anyone of anything, but try to understand why they feel the way they feel, and have some goddamn empathy.
I blame two things for our current situation:
1. Social Media. In hindsight it makes perfect sense, but polarizing content will generate more engagement, and since engagement is a primary KPI for many platforms, that is what the Algorithms will select for naturally. It's a positive feedback loop, that resulted in people defacing their neighbours front-yard political posters, and then smugly posting about it on social media. Because of course that's how you'll convince them to vote for the other party.
2. Two party system: I like eating meat, and I would like to continue doing so if I can. But I also care for the protection of animals and sustainable utilisation of resources. But because meat is part of the Carnivore party's platform, and everything else is part of the Herbivore party's platform. People might support more worker's rights, but now in order to get that they must also be anti abortion. It's a broken system and it breeds deep deep divisions.
The divide is real and very noticeable in meat-space, not just online. This is also happening in the rest of the western world, and has been brewing not just since the Internet but since WWII.
There was a study done on bipartisanship in the US senate, where senators were mapped into a 2D space and pulled together slightly if they voted together, and pushed apart if they voted against each other. 50 years ago the two parties were mixed together, then slowly but surely drifted apart. The animation over the years was like watching cell division. There's now only a couple of senators left in the centre, everyone else is far apart in two blobs.
I have zero in common with people that make their hatred of transgender people a substantial part of their politics -- but have never talked to one and have never been influenced by one in any way.
It's like talking to an alien species that singles out green eyes. Not blue, not brown, just green, but with a seething hatred that goes beyond anything I have ever felt. "You need to also hate the green-eyes or you're bad." is not something I can wrap my head around. Not now, not ever.
The Internet has nothing to do with me feeling this way about green-eye-haters.
All of the news sources you cited are extreme far left sites. All of Reddit is only far left extremism since they banned all conservative viewpoints and block any conservative comments.
Try X.com for a full rounded perspective where all are welcome. Community Notes show misinformation, but do not ban someone from sharing their ideas.
I read all of the major sites, subscribed to NYTimes, WaPo, etc, and X.com is by far the best source of information.
>How nauseatingly condescending. How about issues like illegal immigrants coming in raping/killing women, taking over apartment complexes and living off struggling Americans' taxpayer dime? How about all time high inflation or massive layoffs?
Just curious, I agree on the illegal immigrant issues.
But for inflation, how do you think Trump will help given that inflation is expected to increase during his presidency due to expected tariffs?
Also, why do you think mass layoffs is attributed to democrats and how do you think Trump would help? To me, mass layoffs was just a repercussion of covid spending, zero interest rates.
I'm making the point that voters care about more substantive issues than height or color.
The fact is inflation was at a all time high during Biden's presidency as were mass layoffs. Whether they were directly a result of Biden's policies is definitely up for debate. But what is unequivocally true it happened under his watch. The buck stops with the sitting President.
So I disagree with the GPs condescending view that Trump voters were swayed by the fact he is "tall, white and confident." Voters cared about issues like immigration and the economy and felt the country was going in the wrong direction on these issues.
The vast majority of the inflation issue can be attributed to supply chain bottlenecks during covid and money printing. I don't think Biden had anything to do with it.
I get your point about people voting for Trump not because he is a white male and Harris is a diverse female. It's a naive view. People overwhelmingly voted Obama in and he's mostly black.
I'm more interested in the facts of the core issue for why people vote for Trump.
I've seen a few people/companies do this and it always baffles me. You don't have to use every C++ feature in existence, but a little bit here and there is far more productive and safe than writing C.
You do, if you have to work with an existing code base in which every feature in existence was used.
Even if you start a new greenfield project and get to impose your own coding convention that includes what C++ features should be used, it won't stay that way when people come on board who have different ideas.
Think in object orientation: Put related nouns and verbs together: it is much easier to organize your thoughts using constructors and methods. However do not use virtual methods unless you really must, and if you do, make the class a well-defined explicit interface having only abstract methods. That said, avoid using implementation inheritance: overriding one defined method for another.
Get rid of pointers: When passing objects by reference, using references instead of pointers, especially reference to const, makes code much easier to read. When combined with vector instead of raw arrays, most uses of raw pointers go away.
Do not implement your own fancy data structures: instead use the Standard Template Library. I use STL map, set, and vector all of the time and they remove the need for most other data-structures. Also, when you can, use iterators to traverse these containers, rather than the visitor pattern. Using iterators keeps the control flow of the client contiguous, so it is much more flexible than visitors.
>Do not implement your own fancy data structures: instead use the Standard Template Library. I use STL map, set, and vector all of the time and they remove the need for most other data-structures.
Don't the STL tree and map data structures have notoriously poor performance?
From memory, std::map is comparatively slow because the spec requires pointers to indices to be stable. In practice it is slow; see khash and many others
Personally i don't think this matters too much; you're using c/c++; you're already fast
I mean it depends on the project and scope, but if you just write C-style code but use unique_ptr, vector, string, and <algorithm>, you're already at an advantage.
Take strings for example. In C you have to manually manage memory and there are a million pitfalls. Lots of programmers are lazy and use fixed-sized arrays and "unsafe" functions like strcpy which results in security vulnerabilities and large-input bugs. But even if you do it correctly you have all this mental overhead and lots of lines of code.
No because of the current active community around C++. The large standard template library is safer to use than in-house implementation of the same data structures. The C++ Boost library also gives you a large arsenal of utility functions that is vetted by the community.
So here's the problem: you can buy an older cast-iron table saw with good precision and a large bed for $50-$150 on craigslist, or you can buy a cheap piece of made-in-china plastic at home depot for $500. The cheap piece of plastic checks off more safety features from a regulatory standpoint, but tiny size and poor tolerances results in more kick-back and accidents.
Trying to write a perfect optimizer is like trying to slay a hydra. Every time you address one weakness, two more are spotted. The overall approach has to run in polynomial time (or close to it), so there will always be missed optimization chances.
And then half the time it's just your compiler being stupid.
I've heard that the gyroscopic effect in bicycles is rather small. The balance instead comes from the positive angle of the front wheel, creating feedback. If the bike leans one direction, the wheel rotates to counteract it.
I've been riding an scooter to work for a few years, and the gyroscopic effect of the wheels on a bike do make a big difference. You can't take one hand off the handle bars to use your arm to indicate on a scooter. You will lose control instantly. When I ride my bike I can ride most of the way sitting up and not holding the handle bars at all.
It doesn't matter how the bicycle balances, just that inventors thought it to be possible. Gyroscopes could have inspired that belief. Balancing was probably discovered in a "it works if we design it like this" manner, rather than from first principles.
You can measure it for yourself: balance on the bike when it is stationary, then compare the experience to when you're moving.
When you are moving, it adds in the gyroscopic balancing effect.
Gyroscopic motion means that the force applied acts about 90 degrees later, so when you turn the handlebars which are on a (roughly) vertical axis (call it the "z" axis), the force of that turn is actually applied about the axis that runs from front to back (call it the "y" axis). Gyroscopes "translate" the force.
If you're stationary, and there is no gyroscopic motion, then the only thing that turning the wheel really does is allow you to move the front of the bike to the left or right in order to change your centre of gravity.
My professor debunked this in experimental physics 101. He installed counter wheels on the wheels which spun in the opposite direction (without touching the floor obviously) and was able to still ride the bike just fine.
It may play a part in the effect, but does not explain it entirely.
Well, you can debunk that debunking easily enough if you have a bike.
Stand in front of the bike and lift up the front wheel, holding one fork in each hand.
Attempt to turn the front wheel from side to side without the seat changing position at all.
Now hold the bike up with one hand and with your other hand spin the front wheel as fast as you can.
Now with the front wheel still spinning, go back to holding one fork in each hand and attempt to turn the front wheel side to side without the seat moving at all. You will find it more challenging to do and you will notice that the tendency is for the seat to move in the opposite direction from that which you turn the front wheel.
That is, you turn the front wheel towards your right side, the seat will move towards your left side.
This is the "counter steering" effect that we use in order to balance when riding a bike, and it's entirely due to gyroscopic motion.
“It is almost certain that gyro effects are important at the initial stage of steering manoeuvres. […] My point is that gyroscopic effects are not needed to keep you from falling over when you are riding in a straight line. I am not saying anything about what happens when you actively wish to steer away from straight ahead.”
It also does some calculations that show how small the gyroscopic force is compared to the weight of (bicycle plus rider)
So the gyroscopic effect isn’t necessary to balance a bike, but likely helps in making turns.
The gyroscopic effect is not necessary, and it has been demonstrated both in reality and in simulation [0].
The central principle behind why a bicycle is self balancing while in motion is the fact that it self-steers in the same direction that it is leaning, which counteracts the fall [0][1].
Nah, that's not it. Try riding a bike in reverse (or pushing it). It's not at all stable, because the feedback is applied in the opposite direction. You'll fall right away, even though the gyroscopic effect is identical.
I'd recommend just googling how a bike works instead of pursuing this argument. There's lots of good articles, like this one: http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/bicycle-dynamics/ It looks like my theory on wheel angle may not be entirely true either. You can also find videos on youtube.
The Veritasium video is the best one I've seen but he only describes how counter steering works at slow speeds which is more like how you balance a stationary bike. The faster you go, and the bigger the wheel, the more the counter steering is done by gyroscopic motion than moving the wheel back and forth beneath you.
Destin’s inverted steering bike is definitely an argument for that, inverting the steering does not affect the gyroscopic effect, but the bike requires re-learning how to ride.
No, it doesn't make an argument for that. It's no different from inverting your mouse wheel scroll direction. If you're used to doing it one way you have to get used to doing it another way.
> It's no different from inverting your mouse wheel scroll direction. If you're used to doing it one way you have to get used to doing it another way.
If you invert scroll direction it does not make the mouse stop working, it only hinders scrolling. But inverting steering has an immediate effect on balance, not just on your ability to take a turn.
It's always a eucatastrophe[1] for me. Some random event occurs and it gives me something to focus on. Maybe a person shows up in my life, or an event, or an idea. Contrary to common belief, trying to pull myself out through sheer will and habits never worked.
Love your games as well! Have you considered packaging them for Steam and pricing at less than 5 dollars? (i.e. a single pack of all your NES games) - if you promote to a few YouTube retro influencers you might make a few sales. :-)
Thanks. I might sell some one day, maybe as a physical cartridge release as those have better margins. Mostly though I want people to enjoy my stuff, so a lot of what I release is free.
As a kid I did the math on all the lego sets, and came to the conclusion that the 500 piece bucket was the best bargain, beating out the 1000 piece bucket by a decent amount. Most other sets were an awful value in comparison.
As an adult, I realized buying new was idiotic when I could just buy used. I ended up buying a former lego employee's collection for $60, selling the monorail it contained for $1000, and keeping the massive washing-machine sized rest for myself. Too bad deals like that come once in a lifetime!
OSB is much more nuanced than particle board, often in a bad way. Many manufactures orient the chips along a single axis, meaning it shares the anisotropic properties of solid wood where the X axis has a different strength and expansion rate than the Y axis. And looking at the 3rd dimension, the Z axis is actually quite weak. If you glue something to the face of an OSB board, you can break the joint fairly easily because the individual chips pull out.
Something I realized recently was that you can just buy popcorn kernels in bulk and pop them in the microwave using a covered bowl. I don't think I'll ever buy instant popcorn baggies again.
That's how my wife does it: buys a bag of kernels and puts some into a brown paper sack for microwave heating. Alternatively, they still sell those air poppers[0], which tend to produce better results, so you can use one of those.
Using a paper bag is especially fun if you have young kids since a kindergartner can stir the kernels with oil in a bowl, pour them into the bag, add salt, and shake vigorously. I think it was almost as much fun to make as it was to eat.
I just use a pot. I put in a tablespoon or so of coconut oil, melt it over medium heat with a few kernels and when they pop add a bunch more to almost cover the bottom of the pot. Then I put a lid on it, canted so it lets the moisture leave but not the popcorn and remove from heat when the popping slows. Then I add salt and shake and done. It takes just a few minutes.
I do almost the same. But I use olive oil and toss the freshly popped kernels in cayenne pepper and some nutritional yeast. Delicious and fairly healthy snack!
You can also just put them in a brown paper bag to replicate the popcorn bag experience. Just fold and pinch the top, add whatever salt and oil you want. Corn kernels are crazy cheap too, it's probably $0.05 a bag.
Retro games used a ton of tables. Back then memory speeds were blazing fast, but processors were sluggish, so it made sense to pack as much computation as possible into tables. The more clever you were about it, the fancier games you could make.
Not always, though it might depend on what platform you mean with retro. Kaze Emanuar on YT does a lot of development for the N64 and it feels like half the time he talks about how the memory bus affects all kinds of optimizations. In Mario 64 he replaced the original lookup table for the sine function because an approximation was faster and accurate enough (or rather two approximations for two different purposes).
I love that channel, he reworked the entire Mario 64 code [0] to make it run at stable 60FPS...because he wanted his mods to run faster.
Back when I started I thought I would make games. I used a lookup table for cos/sin kept as an integer. I only needed enough precision for rotation on 320x240. It was something like 20-30 cycles faster per pixel. Even more if you didn't have a FP co-processor.
By retro platform GP meant Atari ST and Commodore Amiga and the like: LUT were the name of the game for everything back then. Games, intros/cracktros/demos.
Heck even sprites movements often weren't done using math but using precomputed tables: storing movements in "pixels per frame".
It worked particularly well on some platforms because they had relatively big RAM amounts compared to the slow CPU and RAM access weren't as taxing as today (these CPUs didn't have L1/L2/L3 caches).
The speedup from the approximation wasn't that much if anything. He made his real improvements elswhere. But your point stands that memory speed really has moved the goalposts on what is feasible to speed up through using precalculation tables and if you can do it with math then that is often much faster.
I remember the days of resticting rotation accuracy to 360/256ths of a degree so it would fit on a byte, which then would be an index into trig lookup tables :)
I miss the days when professional software development was more akin to this sort of thing, rather than gluing together 20 Javascript frameworks on top of someone else's cloud infrastructure.
Having a chance to talk to more people in meatspace this year, it was a surprise to find out how many people have only a passing interest in politics, but still vote. Like, the average user here probably reads 5+ news articles a day, but there are plenty of people IRL that will read one a month, or maybe just skim a headline. They don't really keep up-to-date with the race. They mostly vote by feel and pragmaticism.
People always talk about "shy" Trump voters, but what makes me more curious are voters that match the description above. If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.