shikitohno

Great stump speech for why your preferred party isn't just a bunch of people hostile to anyone who disagrees with them. With people like you representing them, I'm sure they'll be able to win consecutive elections, rather than just getting the odd touch of power when people get tired of the GOP's nonsense. Keep telling yourself it's the voters that are wrong and stupid, and not your party, buddy.

People just don’t like them because they aren’t good enough.

It's more that they're still all in on incrementalism, while the problems people face are worsening by leaps and bounds, and they're actively hostile to members of their own party who advocate for advancing the sort of large-scale, structural changes needed to actually resolve the various crises bearing down on the working class. They're also at odds with their base on major issues, such as healthcare reform, a robust social safety net that isn't means-tested to death, and their obsession with supporting Israel, because they've been captured by the purse strings of their major donors. It certainly doesn't help peoples' opinion of them as embodying the out of touch elites who are deaf to the plight of the working class when party leadership comes out against [https://www.businessinsider.com/we-are-free-market-economy-pelosi-rejects-stock-ban-congress-2021-12?op=1](Congressional insider trading) that our representatives are notorious for exploiting to enrich themselves via privileged knowledge they gain through their positions.

If they didn't dump millions of dollars into primary challenges to progressive candidates that represent a challenge to the prevailing neoliberal order the Dem leadership so dearly loves, even when it means ultimately losing the race to a Republican, I doubt people would be so hostile to them, and the party would probably be in a better place. When party leadership won't resolve their issues in a satisfactory manner, won't listen to and incorporate criticism from their base, and actively fight their efforts to get elected officials who more accurately represent their views and values, it shouldn't be a surprise that people decide to go elsewhere.

You can't publish enough TikToks and youtube videos to media manage your way out of a hostile, out of touch group having a death grip on the party and refusing to admit that, perhaps, the present situation is vastly different today than it was 3-4 decades ago when they were first elected.

There are plenty of people, both politically engaged and those who only show up to vote every 4 years, who are legitimately dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's deafness to the problems facing the average voter, and as long as the Democrats and their supporters continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's all down to a hostile media environment, the further down the path to complete irrelevance they'll find themselves.

Sure, but they often aren't terribly appealing, outside of those that target highly qualified professionals. Japan also needs manpower to make up for shortages in areas like their agricultural and fishing industries, and the terms just kind of suck. Like, I could qualify right now to move there based on my work experience in seafood, but it would be on a 5 year, non-renewable visa, which doesn't count at all towards establishing permanent residency and doesn't allow me to bring my family with me.

Those sorts of programs really only appeal to people from nearby developing nations that want to go to Japan for a few years, send a ton of money back home, and then go back to live in Malaysia or the Philippines once they finish building their new house, or paying for their kid to attend a good school, or whatever. It doesn't do much more than kick the problems of a shrinking tax base and labor pool down the line a bit, nor does it really encourage those participating in such schemes to make serious efforts at integration with the local culture.

Sooner or later, Japan needs to implement a proper immigration reform to offset low domestic birth rates, or they'll have an elderly population that can't fund the government and public services, because they aren't working and the younger generation is too small to carry the load all on their own, and they also won't have the people to care for them and provide them goods and services in their old age.

In comparison, Italy and Spain have roughly 4x the immigrant population of Japan, and Canada's number of immigrants is nearly 10x as large.

they know that skills are portable and employees have no loyalty.

In fairness, this is also down to companies having no loyalty to their employees. I would be more than happy to never have to go job hunting again, if career jobs, with appropriate incentives, were still a thing that actually exists. I am substantially less enthusiastic about the prospect of spending my entire working life dedicated to a single company that will not give me annual raises that beat inflation or any sort of pension as a reward for my loyalty, while my working conditions and benefits will likely deteriorate over time at the whims of a rotating group of petty tyrants in management, and the prospect of getting laid off because some dipshit in the C-suite implemented a terrible idea that anyone with the least amount of experience doing the actual work could have told them was doomed from the start and saved everyone suffering the consequences of their dumbass vanity project to pad their resume for when they pull the cord on their golden parachute and jump ship to sink another business.

I suspect a lot of people would be quite content at having the stability of such a position, if only the trade-offs weren't so terrible for them in pretty much every other way. The vague possibility of a farewell party at the end of 40+ years of work doesn't cut it.

At lot of this strikes me as non-issues, or even bordering on entitlement.

Well, for instance, if you're contributing your own code, there is a high bar to clear. It often feels as if you need to surpass whatever the existing functionality is. Just to get accepted, you have to offer something better than some existing product that may have been around for decades.

Well, no kidding, that's how it works in most things. Why would a project accept a contribution that doesn't add a previously missing feature or improve on the implementation of a current one? I would be pretty suspect of using a program that accepts a random commit so that a college kid can check the "Timmy's first accepted pull request" box and let them pad their resume.

Some would-be contributors are very familiar with programming, reading, and writing code, but they may never have opened an issue or sent a pull request. This is a scary first step. Others may have the necessary tech skills, but not the creativity. Where should they you begin? Also, if someone is scared, that can result in impostor syndrome. The fear that people all over the world will see your bad code is a powerful factor reducing the urge to share it.

These are all things that the greybeards being maligned had to figure out at some point, I don't really see the harm in new contributors being expected to do the same, especially when there is an abundance of documentation and tutorials available now, which simply didn't exist in the past.

For instance, there are a lot of folks doing mods for video games. This can be a very creative activity, there is lots of room for innovation, as well as outlets such as streaming to reach an audience. It applies to all sorts of games, such as Pokémon, Elder Scrolls, and Minecraft. Game modding is a great way in. It could even be a way to set up a company, or to make a living. But it's not considered as FOSS. For novices getting interested, it could even be attracting people away from getting into FOSS development.

Again, nothing new here. No, game mods weren't nearly as prevalent in the past, but new devs have had the choice between contributing to FOSS software and contributing to/creating proprietary programs for as long as FOSS has been a thing.

I don't think the old guard should be dismissive or rude to newcomers when their contributions aren't up to the standard expected to be accepted, but they also aren't getting paid to be these peoples' mentors. It kind of reminds me of posts I see in language learning communities, where people would get all upset, "I completed the Duolingo Spanish tree, but the cashiers at my local Mexican restaurant speak too fast for me to understand and they switch to English when I try to talk to them in Spanish." Cool that you want to try and use the language, my friend, but these people aren't being paid to be your tutor, and you may well be making their job more difficult and/or holding up other paying customers by trying to force random people to listen to your extremely basic, and likely incorrect, Spanish. They don't have an obligation to put everything else in their work or life on hold to try and stroke your ego.

Curiously, I don't see any mention of what, in my view, is likely a much more serious issue to getting new generations of contributors involved, as well as having a more diverse set of contributors. Access to technology and relevant education is far from uniform. If little Timmy from Greenwich, CT has had a personal computer he was free to mess around with to his heart's content from the moment he could read and attended a well-funded school with the possibility of studying computers, programming, and early exposure to things like Linux from grade school onwards, it shouldn't come as any surprise that he's more comfortable working with these concepts and more likely to wind up contributing successfully to FOSS projects than my friend Lucas, in Brazil, who only got a second-hand computer when he managed to get accepted to university, and had no real concept of Linux/FOSS until I explained to him why I couldn't just install a random, Windows-only program he thought would be useful to me.

To draw another language learning comparison, it's like how in the US, most students will only study a second language for a couple of years in high school and two semesters at university, if they attend higher education, and then you periodically have people going, "How come so many Americans fail to speak a second language compared to students in Europe?" Then, you look at the curriculum in countries like Germany, and realize they begin teaching students English as early as grade-school, often adding another foreign language later on. Is it any surprise that, when they have nearly a decade of foreign language instruction, compared to the mere two years many Americans get, alongside a fair bit more exposure to and encouragement of engaging with foreign language media, that they wind up being more proficient at using said language on average?

It's hardly a perfect solution that will completely mitigate all of the issues with getting younger and more diverse groups of people to contribute to FOSS projects, but I don't doubt that having access to computers in the home from a young age and access to more extensive education on computers and related fields from a much younger age would go a long way towards getting more people involved. Of course, even then, having the downtime to be able to dedicate to contributing to/maintaining FOSS projects is a factor that will disproportionately favor historically privileged groups. Even if she has the knowledge and ability to do so, a single mother working three jobs in the Bronx in order to keep a roof over her family's head, food on the table, and the lights and heating on simply might choose not to spend what little free time she has writing a badass new MPD client in Rust that has plugins to integrate with Lidarr and automatically fix metadata with beets based on matching the hashes of files to releases on various trackers in order to scrape the release data from them, no matter how cool the concept might sound to her. And it's not really something I could blame her for.

Beyond games, hardware support would still be a pretty big one. If Linux is widely adopted enough, it makes more and more sense for hardware companies to make sure their new devices will be supported on launch day. Not having to worry about my network card being too new from a brand that has poor/no Linux support would be a pretty big factor in influencing my purchases the next time I'm looking for a laptop. Pretty sure I've also encountered people complaining about being unable to use all the features that their new GPU offers under Windows, because the company hasn't released a Windows driver and devs working on Linux are still in the process of reverse-engineering things to write an open driver that is feature complete.

Another big one would be configuration of peripherals, as there are a fair number that assume you have Windows to run their proprietary configuration tool. I've come across mice like that, as well as mechanical keyboards that require some proprietary Windows program if you want to flash the firmware and customize your layout.

More Linux users also makes it a more attractive target for devs in general. That could mean you get a cool, new hobby project that someone is working on and decides to make a FOSS Linux version, could mean companies at least offer a Linux version of their proprietary software that doesn't have a comparable Linux alternative. There's a lot of software out there that people need for work or school, especially in more niche fields, where there's not a viable Linux alternative and your job/school isn't going to change their entire workflow just for you.

I'm sure others can come up with further examples that wouldn't occur to me.

You keep saying this is a practical response, but won't say how, so I'm done with you. You're the one talking in hypotheticals here, as if bills with no chance of getting passed are actually going to accomplish something. You just keep repeating the same statement about these bills, with zero factual basis.

Good luck out there, because it sure seems like nothing is getting through to you, and I see you talking in the same circles with others now that I've looked around the thread more.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, as that is not at all what I said. Let me spell it out loud and clear for you. Republicans already did a terrible thing removing women's right to autonomy over their own bodies. Several Democratic Senators proposed bills that would impose restrictions broadly within the same category that would impact men, rather than women, if they were to pass, but have literally none of the dire consequences women face from the Republican actions. These proposed bills have literally zero chance of passing into law, and thus will not have any effect. Now, then.

this is a very practical solution.

Let's pull up the old Cambridge dictionary for that pesky word I've bolded.

relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination

Now, since these aren't going to pass into law, and thus have no binding effect on reality, how exactly is this a practical solution.

it isn’t. this legislation prohibiting female bodily autonomy already happened. raped children are being forced to keep their rape babies. women are dying in the parking. lots of hospitals. they are being bounty hunted for seeking medical care. That’s not performative. those are real life effects of these people. you want to allow to steal civil rights, including basic human dignity.

Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, but those are all the consequences of the Republican policy that have already taken effect, and these laws don't propose to undo any of them. Once more, they don't even level the field of oppression, since they aren't going to pass, and the people writing them know this.

A practical solution would have been addressing the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court to prevent the conservative-packed court from doing exactly what they did. Or actually codifying the protections obtained from the Roe v. Wade decision in law at any point in the 50+ years since the ruling was initially made. Either one of those would have actually prevented this situation.

You have yet to articulate in any way how proposing laws that these legislators know will not be passed will do literally anything aside from generate some media coverage. Unless you can do so, there's no point in engaging with you any further. I don't know if you're just a troll, or if you really believe this will actually provoke any real change, as you refuse to explain why you believe this to be a practical solution that will bear fruit, either by correcting the wrongs done to women in this country or by making men face vaguely similar (but not really, kind of hard to equate dying painfully and unnecessarily from being denied healthcare with a $10,000 fine) consequences, in spite of all evidence indicating otherwise.

restricting people’s bodily autonomy and healthcare so that they are dying in the streets of the US is not “performative nonsense”.

That's not what I said, and you know it. Republicans implemented a concrete policy, with dire real world consequences. These proposed bills are dead before they've even finished drafting them, and accomplish nothing beyond creating a moment of tone-deaf political theater so that people who already agree with them can pat themselves on the back.

This does nothing to undo the harms of Republican anti-abortion laws, it doesn't prevent any of those women from dying, it's performative bullshit preaching to the choir. This isn't going to make Republicans suddenly go, "Gee, I never thought of it like that," it's just to get brownie points in liberal circles.

They could have, I don't know, removed the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court to prevent Republicans from doing exactly what they said they wanted to do the last time around, but that's a step too far for the Democrats. I mean, it could have put the matter to rest definitively enough until they had a legislative majority that would let them codify abortion rights, but heavens forbid they kill off one of their great fundraising cash cows and lose the ability to campaign on "If you don't vote Democrat, the Republicans are going to undo Roe v. Wade!" This is another blunder like Hillary's pied piper strategy that came back to bite them when Republicans did the thing Democrats thought couldn't seriously happen.

If women’s rights are restricted in that country, then so should be the men’s.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and even if they did, you and I both know these bills have a 0% chance of actually passing and changing anything.

This is a valid and effective proposal to counter the reproductive rights recently stolen from women.

Since you're so sure this isn't purely performative, but a valid and effective counter, would you care to quantify that efficacy for me? How many of these bills need to be proposed and die before they even hit the floor to win over enough Republicans? How many until women who lost their reproductive rights actually see them restored? Until women stop dying from being denied basic healthcare? I'm not expecting an exact number, but surely, you could give me a ballpark estimate and a timeline for these efforts to start producing results, as confident as you are in this strategy.

Nah, this is performative nonsense to grab some headlines and say, "See, we're doing stuff," that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing and changing peoples' lives. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running roughshod all over the Democrats on things that actually have pretty immediate, overwhelmingly negative impacts on peoples' lives, like the shitshow that is DOGE, and the Democrats are just angrily wagging their collective finger and going, "Why, Mr. President, if you don't knock that off, I'm going to really get cross with you. I daresay, I may even use uncouth language in reference to your person, despite the esteemed office you occupy!" They aren't even making token efforts at trying to derail any of his cabinet picks and get some GOP defectors to help block them.

They've tried nothing and thrown up their hands, so now it's time to draw out the tried and true playbook of looking as incompetent and out of touch at a key moment in history as they can possibly manage to do, short of outright switching party membership and taking up the GOP mantle themselves.

Yeah, it's pretty good, especially in the summer time.

On topic for the thread, the way I make it has pretty much always gotten a "WTF are you trying to feed me?" look from Dominicans. Okay, more of an "Ay dios mío, este muchacho" eye roll and a "¿Qué es este menjunje que tu tá inventando allí?" from them, if I'm being honest. For the ones I've gotten to actually try it, though, they all agree it's pretty good.

I have the usual mix of milk and orange juice, add in some sweetened, condensed milk, vanilla extract, and then I add jam/preserves instead of just sugar. I'm partial to cherry preserves, but if chinola jam were a thing I could get here, I'd probably just stick with that. Toss it in a blender with some flaked ice, and 30 seconds later, you're that much closer to developing diabetes. Depending on the sort of night I'm having, I might toss in some spiced rum, too.

Can't be, I actually recognize all the sponsors as real brands with existing products, rather than shit I've never heard of that turns out to be crypto nonsense, shell companies, Philipp Morris in a mask, or some combination of the three.

Probably IndyCar, let's go to the nose cam, brought to you by Verizon, for another angle on this one.