IM DA JOKER BABY

  • Quimby [any, any]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    As a heads up in advance, we have an intermediate protection ready in case the site goes down again due to extremely high traffic, like it did for Roe v Wade. (We are also working on infrastructure and performance improvements in the meantime, but I'm the actual worst, so...) If that does go into effect, you'll see the following:

    1. posts will only be visible to logged in users
    2. your upbears will still work (number will change), but they won't stay highlighted yellow.

    So... uh... no need to panic. (IF that even happens)

    • SerLava [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sorry for sharing an uneducated opinion but would it help/be possible to disable the real time page updates, and only update upon URL change or refresh? That's gotta be pinging the site all the time from every tab right?

      It also sometimes makes my open threads suddenly disappear so I wouldnt miss it

        • DarthCaedus [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’m convinced it’s intentional in order to make us touch grass whenever it becomes annoying enough… almost at least.

      • Quimby [any, any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I appreciate the suggestion. I think that's something that's been discussed before. while I'm not as much of a front-end dev, I've been told that the site's usage of websockets makes this not as bad? don't want to out any of the other devs, but maybe someone else can chime in if they feel comfortable doing so.

        • KenBonesWildRide [they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Can confirm. The bottlenecks that happen when the site gets high traffic are in the database. New websocket messages happen in response to post and comment creation, which are relatively lightweight operations with a small payload.

          So live updates have consistently been an issue that needs to be resolved on the frontend, but making that fix would not stop the site from getting overloaded

          • riseuppikmin [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Hey, just wanted to ask who the right people to contact are regarding getting a better understanding of the various service interactions and deployment-related stuff for the site.

            I'm on the analytics side of database operations (so a slightly difference space than the needs of an API interacting with the DB layer- but still familiar with Postgres which I assume is what is being used since this is a lemmy fork), but I'd still like to get an understanding of how the site's services interact to see if I can potentially find any performance gains that might alleviate some of this stress a bit.

            Edit- nevermind. Found resources on the pinned c/technology thread and am looking into them now.

    • PurrLure [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thank you and the team for all your hard work, I've been too angry to touch most other sites in the last week. :fidel-salute:

    • CheGueBeara [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Hi! Thanks for all your hard work!

      If I had a certain set of web skills, how would I go about helping you all out?

  • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    So there it is, laid out plain and clear for the libs: the continuation of this system and the survival of human civilization are now in total conflict; only one of the two can possibly happen now.

    They'll still insist on a :vote:-based solution, sure. But what happens when they get slaughtered in November? Will they finally wake the fuck up, or will they just mope at brunch? Stay tuned, folks.

    • charly4994 [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      There's some people that realize the problem, but reading through the reddit thread on Brandon saying he's okay with an exception to the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, there's a bunch of people screaming that we need to vote, that if we touch the filibuster, Republicans will do worse, and that there's nothing we can really do because of a constitutional crisis should Congress pass a law directly at odds against the Supreme Court, but also don't think about gerrymandering. I don't see these people still violently against anything other than voting to ever wake up. I mean for God's sake they think they'll get Collins and Murkowski to defect to counter Manchin and Sinema.

      • ClimateChangeAnxiety [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        that if we touch the filibuster, Republicans will do worse

        This is a fucking baby brained take. The Dems basically never used the filibuster when Trump was in office because they know full well if they use it the Republicans have no problem just ignoring it. It’s a rule that only applies to democrats.

        • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          he Dems basically never used the filibuster when Trump was in office because they know full well if they use it the Republicans have no problem just ignoring it. It’s a rule that only applies to democrats.

          They did. The biggest bill the was passed under Trump was the 2017 tax cuts which passed under budget reconciliation ( the way you can avoid the filibuster once per year). The filibuster definitely limited what the Trump govt could do (till Dems won the House)

          The difference is that Republicans can advance their goals with the Federalist Society people on the Supreme Court (as we are seeing) so they benefit more from the filibuster being in place.

      • D61 [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Libs still can't seem to get that the Republicans/conservatives/fascists are totally willing to kill the hostages they take.

      • 20000bannedposters [love/loves]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        For a whole two days /r/ politics has no posts about trump. Now they are back at it. I don't think go vote posters are organic

    • CthulhusIntern [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      The Supreme Court could rule that it's illegal to vote for non-Republicans, and the libs would STILL say the only solution is to :vote:

    • marxisthayaca [he/him,they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      They’ll still insist on a :vote:

      Supreme court just took up a voting laws case for next term :capitalist-laugh:

        • marxisthayaca [he/him,they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck #BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants certiorari in Moore v. Harper; will decide next Term whether state legislatures can override state courts on questions of state law where federal elections are concerned (the "independent state legislature doctrine"):

          https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf

          • CthulhusIntern [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            OK, but what are the specifics of this case? Is this case seeing if states are allowed to ignore election results, like quite a lot of Republicans want to do?

    • Ericthescruffy [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      They’ll still insist on a -based solution, sure. But what happens when they get slaughtered in November? Will they finally wake the fuck up, or will they just mope at brunch?

      I was talking with some of my lib friends about this who are struggling to come to terms with the reality of it....but in my anecdotal experience they're kinda getting it. If they do wake up though, the problem we'll have to deal with is that this is going to require things getting to the point where people are willing to literally throw their bodies in front of this to try and stop this thing.

      I don't blame them for being terrified and not wanting to. I'm on the wrong side of 35 so I don't harbor illusions about being solid snake under the right circumstances anymore like every idiot dude thinks he would be given the chance.

      • Sickos [they/them, it/its]
        ·
        2 years ago

        My work chat actually included the phrase "violent revolution" today, and not from me. In a public forum. I think some folks are actually getting fed up maybe. It's probably just :copium:

    • pink_mist [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I thought I'd find a 538 article telling Dems it was still safe to brunch but I guess that wouldn't be the case. I was almost certain 2022 would hold steady and 2024 would be when they jerk the wheel right, but I guess were going to veer into it first.

  • sempersigh [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    three years ago i held up a sign at a protest that said socialism or barbarism

    well... barbarism it is folks!

    :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep: :agony-deep:

      • sempersigh [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I'm already planning to wage gorillla warfare on the federalist society. Me and my mates are storming the place completely nude, armed and dangerous while blasted on lsd :spongebob-party: :spongebob-party: :spongebob-party:

        to any federal agents reading: this is not a parody i am a danger to society and good luck i'm behind 69 proxies behind the dumpster of a mcdonalds using their wifi where i craft all of my posts

        • jabrd [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Me and my mates are storming the place completely nude, armed and dangerous while blasted on lsd

          Isn’t that the plot to that amazon movie Get Duked?

  • DirtbagVegan [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is even more clear cut than Roe that it would be incredibly simple for the Democrats to fix this with legislation, so of course you can count on them doing absolutely nothing and pretending Joe Manchin is the only dem in the pocket of big coal.

    • Elon_Musk [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is even more clear cut than Roe that it would be incredibly simple for the Democrats to fix this with legislation,

      How so?

      • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
        ·
        2 years ago

        the decision just says the EPA can't define stuff w/o congress, no? so congress just needs to pass a law with the same rules. dems are in power it should be as simple as pie lmao

        but i think they'll lay this one on the altar of "things we cant do anything about because someone we can override said no"

        • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          but i think they’ll lay this one on the altar of “things we cant do anything about because someone we can override said no”

          The Parliamentarian (who serves COMPLETELY at the discretion of just the Senate Majority Leader and can be unilaterally replaced by them) sends their regards

        • DirtbagVegan [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yes, basically this. The argument for was based on the clean air act as the source of this power of the EPA to regulate emissions. Just need to pass a law basically explicitly giving the EPA that power.

      • regul [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Basically says agencies like the EPA can't make their own rules, that responsibility/power lies with the legislature. The "rulemaking power" can't be delegated, essentially.

  • bananon [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    What do you think was the flash point in Germany when people realized that the descent into fascism had already happened? I thought America’s decline into fascism would be gradual because of how powerful it is, but in just one week we’ve regressed on 100 years of liberal reforms. I knew we were frogs being boiled alive, but it’s like they said fuck the water and threw us straight into fry oil.

    • Quimby [any, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think it has been gradual. Hence "the worst day in America history, only to be beaten by every subsequent day in American history" or whatever. There has been shocking event after shocking event for decades.

    • thekid [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago
      1. Hitler being appointed chancellor

      2. April 1st, '33 boycott of Jewish businesses

      3. Nuremberg laws

      4. Kristallnacht

    • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

      Lib shit, but the point is there never will be one shining moment. We are in the interceding steps heading towards the abyss; hell, maybe we're already in it

      • Parzivus [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Supreme Court had shit out at least three of these in a week so who knows?

    • HoChiMaxh [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      :astronaut-1:

      Destruction of corporate property isn't terrorism though.

      • DinosaurThussy [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I have a material interest in anticipating what the US government will interpret as such

        • HoChiMaxh [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          You shouldn't accept and use their framing any more than you do the framing of forced birth activists.

          • jabrd [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Rejecting the judges definition of violence as they throw me into the despair pit

          • DinosaurThussy [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m not accepting and using their framing by anticipating what will and won’t get me kidnapped and caged by pigs

            • HoChiMaxh [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              You are though. Nobody is saying sabotaging industry isn't highly illegal, only that you shouldn't further the conflation of that with terrorism.

              • DinosaurThussy [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                I’m really not. Being aware of how your oppressor views the world is not the opposite of fighting oppression. It’s a necessary prerequisite. If I go to a protest in black bloc and leave my phone behind, I’m not accepting the 🐷 framing that leftist protesters are violent and therefore deserving of being tracked down and harassed via mass surveillance. I’m doing my best to protect myself from their predictable reaction to me challenging their power.

                If you really wanna dig in on this, are you saying that industrial sabotage is not terrorism because it’s destruction of property rather than doing harm to people? Or are you saying that by calling sabotage terrorism I’m conflating ecological freedom fighting with Nazi mass shooters or something? Because I’m not the one doing that conflation. The US government is.

      • NephewAlphaBravo [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        :shrug-outta-hecks: As long as you understand it'll be labeled terrorism on every tv in the country

    • LeninsBeard [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Terrorism is useless without a party attached to it (but separate enough for plausible deniability) that can come out and explain to the public why these acts are being done. Terrorism for its own sake will only lead to further repression.

      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        There's a difference between terrorism to make a political point and sabotage to disable critical infrastructure, which I think is what most people really mean when they say "eco terrorism". Make it too difficult and expensive to operate as-is.

        • LeninsBeard [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah that's fair, but I do think it's possible that even sabotage could end up running counter to what we're trying to do without a vanguard party to explain the actions. Say you destroy a pipeline, yes that shuts the pipeline down for x amount of time, but when gas prices go up and there's no public explanation as to the motives, I feel that would simply be a temporary inconvenience for the capitalist class while setting back the cause for the masses.

          Considering you would really need a mass movement to cripple infrastructure long-term, I think it's more helpful to continue building in ways that may still be dubiously legal but have more chance to really build a mass movement i.e. the many indigenous groups fighting to protect their land from pipelines.

  • Kanna [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well... that's really just it then, huh? Without serious revolutionary action, which can still happen, the Earth is just fucked

    • Quimby [any, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It's not exactly ideal, but I suspect the global South will use aerosols to cool the planet down. The subsequent consequences of that are unknown. I wouldn't be surprised to see that, in turn, taken too far.

      • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
        ·
        2 years ago

        global souths gonna plant trees and bill gates is gonna spray aerosols over them and kill the new forests with acidrain & artificial shade

        • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          plant trees

          Current climate models almost always assume negative emissions. The best technology we currently posses to do that, is, like you said, planting trees. If all nations keep the promises they made in the Paris agreement, we still need to plant a forest the size of two to three times India to keep us below 1.5°C warming.

    • soy_disantra [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      the earth is gonna be fine in the long run, it's human beings who are gonna be fucked.

      • bort_simp_son [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Almost all animal and plant life on earth will also be fucked. But yeah at least the rocks and dirt will still be there.

          • Teekeeus
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            deleted by creator

          • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            This is like using new babies as an excuse for murder. Ecocide is not justifiable because in millions of years life may evolve again.

            This is Reddit (tm) pedantic nihilism and it’s gross

            • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I didn't say ecocide is justifiable. I said life would come back.

              The end of most species is still bad though

              • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
                ·
                2 years ago

                That’s definitely the implication when you pedantically correct people who warn against catastrophic global ecological destruction with “eh the earth will be fine”. It’s a very common Redditism, as it combines pedantry with nihilism, anti-humanism and consumerism.

                  • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    Eh I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it, it’s just an annoying Reddit trope. You made it in jest as dark humor it seems, but there are people out there who literally use these arguments to not care about the “doom speaking alarmists” who warn about what is coming and continue their inaction

        • SadStruggle92 [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Animal & plant life have ironically been through more bullshit than we've thrown at them & bounced back before. You gotta remember that something like 90% of all biodiversity that has ever existed on the planet went extinct before humans even existed as a species.

  • ReformOrDDRevolution [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety.

    fucking speed running fascism

  • PurrLure [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I knew it was coming and yet it still ruined my day.

    If there aren't at least mass protests by July 4th, that's it, this country is doomed. Libs can't even bother to go out kicking and screaming. :joker-troll:

    • MC_Kublai [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Since when have libs ever gone out kicking and screaming? They’re gonna go out licking and sucking :so-true: :bootlicker:

      • PurrLure [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        :volcel-judge: "STOP RIGHT THERE, SUCC DEM!" :liberalism: :pingu-horny:

  • HogWild [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I'm just so tired. So, so tired...but I'm also old, and revolutions are for young people, right?

  • flowernet [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    People were speculating that this ruling would remove the federal government's ability to enforce regulatory rules made by any federal agency. EPA, SEC, FAA, and that this would deligitimize the supreme court because the government was not likely to abide the ruling and many agencies were planning to ignore the ruling.

    Is that still gonna happen?

    • FunkyStuff [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mean, what's stopping them from ignoring the court? The court doesn't have an army backing it up (and the Pentagon already has released statements opposing them), or a police force. It's all on paper, no?

    • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      It's actually a much more restrained ruling than people were expecting, and I would bet it's for exactly that reason.

    • supdog [e/em/eir,ey/em]
      ·
      2 years ago

      read this from reason. com, which breaks it down fine. Obviously they think bad things are good but for describing the technical what-happened, it does that fine.

      It dealt more with the correct statutory reading of the clean air act than with the constitutional nondelegation, which is what we were scared about, which is still going to come up at some point.

      and tbh I think the decision is bad for consequentialist reasons, not because the reasoning is bad. Although when I read the dissent, I find myself agreeing with that too. I agree with whatever I read last :/

  • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    :shinji-screm: IT ALL GOES TUMBLING DOWN

    TUMBLING DOWN

    TUMBLING DO-OWN

    IT ALL EETURNS TI NOTHING

    IT JUST KEEPS LETTING ME DOWN

    LETTING ME DOWN

    LETTING ME DOWN :shinji-impact: