Fighting Oligarchy resonates greatly. But yes, the dems have focused too much on the culture war in favour of participating in the class war against the working class.

That is definitely something they should put waaaay more focus on. Trump is the cry for help of much of the working class, if people would believe you actually fought FOR the working people in your country, the dems would be unstoppable.

depends on your Distro, for Linux Mint it's just the Driver Manager.

To access the Driver Manager in Linux Mint, follow these steps:

1. Click on the Menu (Taskbar) in the lower-left corner of your screen.
2. Navigate to Administration.
3. Click on Driver Manager.

Once you have opened the Driver Manager, follow these steps to install the Nvidia drivers:

1. The Driver Manager will prompt you for your password. Enter your password and click on Authenticate.
2. The Driver Manager will scan your system for available drivers. Once the scanning is complete, you will see a list of available drivers for your graphics card.
3. Select the recommended Nvidia driver from the list.
4. Click on Apply Changes to start the installation process.

Then reboot.

source

For most problems you can really just google stuff like "Linux Mint Nvidia Drivers"

Haha, oops

Alright, let's try something different then

Steve is absolute Gold though

It's a whole thing she's been shooting down his shit-takes for years now.

Steve Hofstetter is a great comedian and has the best comebacks. He is wasted on this "explaining words to Kevin Sorbo"-series, there's no character growth, no shred of understanding, no positive character arc, Kevin just keeps mouth-shitting bullpucky every week and Steve or Lucy Lawless or a five year old have to explain to him that he's saying dumb shit.

Boeing: "All those damn regulations exist only to keep us out of the european market!"

The regulations: "Plane must fly safe"

Soul patch Hipler

Not my work, this is all /u/BobsenJr on Reddit, I merely repeated what he wrote and lifted what I thought to be the most important parts of it to freedom from Reddit to Lemmy.

I'm so glad I don't drink coffee...

Mjam, leave it in there for the weekend to ripen!

I remember a seldom used office coffee machine that everyone complained made the coffee taste "funny", they got the message about the necessary cleaning after maggots started crawling out. 🤢🤮

This seems to be a mostly false tale, though it is based on evidenced reports.

From the archives of the French Police, in a memo sent on 15 June 1810 to Savary, the newly-appointed Minister of Police for 15th June 1810.

15 - Boulogne. Escaped Englishmen. The customs officers arrested near Boulogne the names Mogg, Lewis, Partson, Altsford, English prisoners of war who had escaped from Arras ; they intended to embark on a skiff that they had managed to build with canvas and ropes that they had brought with them, and wood that they had cut in the forest where they had hidden ; they had made this boat waterproof by means of a thick layer of tallow. These prisoners, from Arras to the wood in which they had hidden near the coast, had walked only at night, using the moon and the stars to guide them. The administration of the Navy tested the canoe made by these four prisoners; 6 men embarked, steered it with oars and held the sea without a drop of water entering. This invention was generally praised. These prisoners told the general commissioner who questioned them: "If the Emperor knew the boldness of our undertaking, he would grant us our freedom".

In the archives of Napoleons correspondence however, we can find that the imperial family stayed in Boulogne at the end of May 1810, leaving on the 26th, but Napoleon did not set foot there after that, as he was in Saint-Cloud and Rambouillet doing governing stuff for the rest of the year. He did however correspond regularly with Minister of Police Savary about even small local events.

It is possible that Napoleon read the plea of Mogg and his companions, and it is imaginable that he ordered that they be set free, but there's no mention of that in his letters to Savary, despite an amazing display of micro-management. There's no way Napoleon took a couple of days to go to Boulogne and talk to the sailor in person though.

Most probably, what happened is that the true story of the daring attempt of the four sailors, and their remarkable plea to Napoleon, may have been famous in Boulogne, and that it somehow morphed into a much better "Napoleon freed a British sailor, gave him money, and sent him home" story with its fairy-tale ending, and that it was this story that circulated both locally and among British sailors, and was reported to Las Cases by his sailor acquaintance. Las Cases says that Napoleon confirmed the stories but, as we saw, some are indeed true.

There are, however, real tales of Napoleon's generosity towards British sailors, and I'll conclude this answer with the following anecdote told by Lewis (1962), which took place a few months after the Mogg story.

On December 27, 1810, the Indian country-ship Elizabeth, Captain Robert Eastwick, drifted on to a shoal off Dunkirk in a terrific gale. Of a total complement of 380, only twenty-two, including Eastwick, braved the appalling surf, and reached the shore more dead than alive. They were instantly carted off to the town gaol and locked, white officers and lascar seamen together, in a foul cachot. But the Dunkirkers, who were known to have secret sympathies with the British, were, openly for once, furious. Having watched with their own eyes the survivors’ long and desperate fight for life, and having spontaneously cared for them and revived them with the most solicitous kindness, they were scandalized that they should thus be hauled off to a dungeon: and their rage and shame were further increased when it came out that one of the survivors had been foully murdered. Edward Tench, a lieutenant in a Ceylon regiment, was a passenger. He was not with Eastwick in the boat, but had somehow managed to swim ashore alone. There, exhausted, he was found by a soldier and a customs officer, who promptly dispatched him for the sake of the money he carried. This was too much. With one voice they appealed to Caesar, the commandant himself leading.

The Emperor, just then, was in the throes of his argument with the British Government; squirming, wriggling, cheating right and left, and loudly proclaiming in public that he would not give way an inch to the utterly unreasonable demands of the enemy. Not a single Englishman would be exchanged until their rulers mended their vile ways. In fact, the Moniteur had only just printed a message from the imperial pen declaring as much. Add to this the well-known fact that His Majesty did not like Dunkirkers, who, as he knew very well, did not like him. Save perhaps for the Bretons, they were the last people whom he would willingly oblige. None the less — and to everyone’s surprise, including Eastwick’s — he sent for the petition as soon as he heard of its arrival, read carefully the account of the shipwreck, and, with that same hand which had written so recently to the Moniteur, signed an order for the immediate and unconditional release of the whole party, the French Government to bear all expenses. He did not demand, or even hint at, any exchange. But of course he got one. Before he left for home, the grateful and far-sighted Eastwick held a consultation with the leading Dunkirkers, who presented him with a list of 150 of their townsmen who were prisoners in England; and the first thing he did on reaching London was to visit the Transport Board, where he told his story. Instantly twenty-two Dunkirkers departed for France, and they were the ones picked by their own folk as being the most deserving of release.

original, sources and text I am mostly repeating here | r/AskHistorians Reddit

Hi-diddly-ho, vicinus!

Holy shit... when the Browser itself becomes the Man-in-the-Middle attack

What you cannot turn off are the homophobic views of Brendan Eich, Braves CEO and co-founder.

Damn, beat me to the punch line.

Criminals absolutely do use Signal! Sometimes they even invite journalists to group chats.

There is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.

I am an atheist, which means I don't accept the proposition of the existence of a god as true.

I am a strong or gnostic atheist, which means I am convinced that the answer to the question if a god exists is knowable and that the answer is no, no god exists.

I am an anti-theist, which means I am convinced that theism (the unfounded, superstitious belief in a god) is a bad influence on the human civilisation.

I am a militant anti-theist, in that I feel I have to vigorously defend the scientific and civilizational accomplishments of my society against the ever present encroachment of superstition in the form of theism that wants to press its bad and wrong morals and ethics on my community.

Most atheists aren't anti-theists.

Edit: If I am a fanatic would entirely depend on your definition of fanaticism.

Fanaticism, a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or an obsessive enthusiasm

I am quite convinced that my position is not uncritical as I have arrived on it through critical thinking and am prepared to leave my position if shown convincing evidence or logical flaws in my position. This I would regard as very much opposed to zeal.

I also would take issue with the word obsessive, as it connotes excessive, unrelenting, unyielding and headstrong. Because I would very much love to abandon having to defend my values, I simply feel that I can't when they are under attack.

As a militant anti-theist I have informed myself about the most influential theist on earth. He was heading the most influential, superstitious, conservative, dogmatic organisation in the world and his views and speeches still shape policy in my country and the union of countries it exists in. Where I have to suffer under or combat every policy idea the people influenced by him impose on me, as I hold views diametrically opposed to his. Keeping myself and those around me informed about the hollowness of the public image of these enemies of modernity is one of the few ways to fight back against theist feel-good propaganda.

How you think I could have done otherwise is beyond me.

It seems to me like saying people should ignore bad actors instead of actively opposing them.

The catholic church... any organized religion really is a force for conservatism, tradition, dogmatism and superstition.

You will NEVER see a pope who aligns with modern, secular, humanist morals and ethics, because such a person would never rise to power in a monarchical, absolutist structure build on hierarchy, dogmatism and obedience.

In my opinion, no pope will ever be not an asshole.

But you can absolutely be a HUGE asshole like Joseph Alois Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) (Fuck the Motherfucker), or you can be a somewhat less bad asshole like Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis). But even if this one produces less shit than the other, it's still a huge asshole producing lots of shit.

So please don't underestimate the amount of shit this asshole produced!

Francis scored points in the Evangelical camp not only by dispensing with traditional Catholic pomp (such as the red velvet shoes), but also by implementing the Evangelicals' political agenda. Hardly any other pope has supported the worldwide campaigns against abortion as massively as he has, and hardly any pope has done so little against the massive attacks on gays, lesbians and trans people from within his own ranks. When, for example, the Nigerian Bishops' Conference called for even harsher punishments for homosexuals, no substantial criticism was heard from Rome. All in all, Francis was not an “advocate of humanity”, but rather a sympathetic, smiling face that concealed a deeply inhuman ideology. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

source

Instead of clearly naming the aggressor, Francis called on Ukraine to “show the white flag” as an expression of willingness to negotiate - a call that was understood in Kiev as an invitation to surrender. The fact that he repeatedly avoided directly naming Vladimir Putin as the person responsible for the suffering, but instead spoke of a “drama on both sides”, called his moral judgment into question and damaged his credibility as an advocate for peace and justice.

source

His response to the islamic attacks on Charlie Hebdo:

“If a dear friend speaks badly of my mother, he can expect a punch, and that's normal. [...] You shouldn't provoke the faith of others.”

His position towards abortion:

“like hiring a contract killer to solve a problem”

Because it lacks the ability to digest a Union with over 14 times its population.

Like eating an entire pack of Mentos and then downing a gallon of coke.