ExtravagantEnzyme

joined 4 months ago
 

Most voters don’t vote for—often don’t even consider voting for—third parties because they view voting for a third party as helping the establishment party they most hate. Disenchanted Democrats continue to vote for Democrats because they don’t want Republicans; disenchanted Republicans continue to vote for Republicans because they don’t want Democrats. Both are trapped by fear and loathing.

Disenchanted Republicans should dialogue and pair up with disenchanted Democrats and both vote for third party or independent candidates. That is, instead of you and a friend canceling out each other’s votes, one self-loathingly voting for Harris and the other for Trump, you vote for the third-party candidates you actually want. You both get to vote your preference without helping the candidate you most dislike.

VotePact frees up votes in pairs from each of the establishment parties. This liberates the voters to push the lever for their actual preference from among those on the ballot, rather than just pick the “least bad” of the two majors. It doesn’t change the balance between the establishment parties, but “syphons off” votes from them equally. The pair could each vote for different candidates, or they could vote for the same candidate. If the latter, it could open the path to an actual electoral victory for an enterprising independent candidate.

We’re trying to free people from the fear of voting for candidates that actually represent their beliefs. Over the years, real independents, principled progressives, libertarians, authentic conservatives, and others have been unrelentingly manipulated by the establishments of the two major parties. They should wake up to the fact that they can join together, rather than be kept apart by establishment party apparatchiks who exploit their fear to maintain the ruling duopoly. It can lead to an independent or emerging party candidate winning.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's a reference equating rebellion against tyrants and being obedient to God. Basically, God wants you to rebel against tyrannical overloads. Which is odd as Don literally put the pieces in place providing presidential immunity. A tyrant is defined as a ruler who has no legal limits on his or her power...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Eyedea & Abilities always came with some of the best and most creative hip-hop. Their entire album E & A is next level with all the aspects you referenced. I love track #2, Now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZVkW-HtSgA&t=9

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I2P could be a solid option over TOR then, no?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A solid privacy conscious youtuber, The Hated One, just published a video on this exact topic. It's very detail oriented and should be easy for anyone to follow along. Here's the link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A8ZXDiQLH9I

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Virulence is defined as causing damage to the host. If the virus kills everyone in that small proximity, the virus will no longer be able to reproduce or spread, plain and simple.

Viruses are super crafty in obtaining their limited number of proteins from the host. However, some viruses bring enzymes with them to get the job done without much help from the host. These are typically larger RNA viruses. Influenza is in this group, but it still steals the 5' cap from the host. This happens without miss as it's able to interact with the host RNA polymerase undetected and then this cap makes it so the influenza RNA appears to be host RNA.

The 1918 influenza was so deadly as it had just jumped to a new host, humans. The same exact influenza responsible for the 1918 pandemic has relatives still in circulation. It's not in circulation as the less virulent versions were more successful. This explicitly demonstrates the preference to be less virulent.

If a virus doesn't need many proteins from the host, it's able to reproduce much more quickly than one dependant on more host resources. The more resources it needs, the increased ability of the immune system to prevent it's reproduction. So in many situations, a lower requirement for host resources can make it more successful. Regardless, it can be very dependent on host resources, like many DNA viruses, and still not be very virulent. A great example of this is Hepatitis D. Virology is a fascinating field and it's highly intricate as a virus is more like it's host than any other viruses. There's not a lot of commonality between different viruses and their reproduction cycles. So viruses in the same family are compared, and the 1918 becoming less virulent shows there's a preference for becoming less virulent over time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Then why does bird flu have more invasive symptoms and a higher mortality rate compared to human influenza's? I was taught by a virologist who's been around the block many times and got her PhD in the USSR. She was adamant that a parasite never wants to kill it's host, as this results in no longer being able to reproduce in the host and shortens it's reproduction time in future host.

Most viral offspring are not capable of infection, as without mutations, viruses would not be able to reproduce effectively and could not adapt to changing environments. To disprove a hypothesis simply means one aspect of the statement is incorrect. So while the cause and effect occurs, the explanation for why wasn't dialed. Or at least, this would be my guess for how it could have been disproven.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

We've known since at least March that about 10 human cases of this new bird flu would allow the virus to mutate and adapt to humans. This is the 14th reported case in the states this year, and the first which could have been transmitted from human to human. We understood what was happening, yet have really done nothing to try to prevent it's spread.

The mutation rate baked into Influenza's reproduction cycle is much more elaborate than coronaviruses, and this isn't exactly a bad thing. When a human catches bird flu from a bird, the mortality rates are pretty burly as this version of the virus attaches to the α2:3 receptor. While this receptor is found throughout the avian digestive and respiratory track, it's only found in the lower lungs of humans. A lower lung infection will always be gnarlier than an upper respiratory infection. Human influenza viruses have a preference for the α2:6 receptor, which is found throughout our airway. This is the primary adaptation which occurs when influenza mutates to infect humans. But a virus is a parasite, so in their ideal world, they wouldn't kill their host. Viruses often do the most damage when adapting to or having recently adapted to a new host. Hopefully, the mutation rate of influenza will result in a shorter pandemic compared to COVID if it ends up taking place.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

“Shots fired, into the sky, are now returning, where the fuck will you hide?”

Rise Against — Rumors of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, I see, I interpreted the statement as Mozilla handing over previously collected user data as payment for getting AccuWeather's widget.

However, any webpage visited in a bowser provides this info. So if you haven't stopped it happening from the get, you're handing this data over in mass. But thanks for clearing that up for me!

 

Innovative study of DNA’s hidden structures may open up new approaches for treatment and diagnosis of diseases, including cancer.

view more: next ›