To anyone unfamiliar with Spain politics, it might not be even noticed.

But it is incredible that the party with most scandals and corruption (PP) claims that they'll party will do less corruption than them. Why don't the media give attention to other parties that have less corruption than PSOE instead of the masters of corruption PP?

We no longer live in a 2-party country.

I can block .ml communities in my GUI. But I can't block its users, unless I go 1 by 1. Blocking the communities is big, but not enough.

Most legislation is not done through petitions like these.

The EU is composed of tens of countries with very different cultures. And plenty of parties.

In the US there are only 2 parties. And they mostly vote in favour of whatever their party wants.

Having multiple parties means that it is very rare for a single party to have 50% of the vote. Which means they have to make agreements constantly. Which is very time consuming.

Let's say you have parties ABCDEF. Parties A and B are big, the other small.

Party A wants to make a law. It either needs help of B, or 2 of the small parties. Parties BC are immediately opposed. So it has to convince D, E or F. D will only support it if they can pass another bill. That other bill is a deal breaker for E and F.

Now A's only option are E and F. So if they want to have that bill passed, they'll have to give E and F whatever they want. Which probably A doesn't want. So even though A is a big party, it is impossible for them to pass that bill.

So you're saying that GTA VI is only going to be used by the developers?

And how does tech companies putting AI results on every interaction of mine count as a user? I never read their bullshit, yet it's all over my screen, wasting both insane amounts of energy and valuable screen space.

Ignoring the shitty quick maths. Those are energy costs of employing people. Those programmers and artists won't stop needing AC and a computer if you get rid of the videogame industry, they'll move to another industry with AC and computers.

The supreme court gave total immunity to the president while Biden was president. He didn't use it a single time.

I don't know how hackaday works. Is literally anyone allowed to write articles full of non-factual information?

Rust: has stronger typing than C. This guy: I don't like rust since it's weakly typed.

Also this guy: doesn't uses cargo because it downloads from the internet without taking the 5 seconds of research to know that --offline exists.

Also this guy: I don't like that rust calls C unsafe. It's safer than assembly.

The guy is just dumb as rocks.

Seeing this I think now it's more than half the US.

Probably they'll point at this and say "finally, a politician that does what he promises, I should vote for him next time"

I'm not talking about the technical possibility. Of course you can have multiple video stream, one per participant.

I'm saying that without multicast, it can be more resource intensive than having intermediate servers that can multicast on the application layer.

Is a connection between 3+ people still p2p? Or is there another term for it?

I don't know how this would work over the internet though.

On a LAN you could use multicast, but I don't think ISPs support multicast, it seems like it would be an easy way to DoS. But I honestly don't know.

So, if you can't multicast, the way to have serverless multi-user video calls would be to have a separate video feed for each receiver, which I can see using more resources than through a server that would replicate the stream to all the receivers. Of course this is dependant on distance, even without multicast it consumes more resources if everyone is in the same LAN.

1. My argument has nothing to do with trans or sports. My point is that his opinions are not contradictory.
2. Yor point has gone from "you are wrong for being a contrarian" to: "you are wrong because _____"

Fill in the blank please.

And what I'm saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.

Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:

• Original guy: here are some opinions I have
• Other guy: your opinions don't make sense, some of them contradict other ones
• Me: they don't contradict at all. It is perfectly coherent to have those opinions.
• You (correct me if I'm wrong): your opinion is wrong because it seems you're a contestant for a contrarian contest.

I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they're incorrect because they are contrarian.

I don't understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?

You're yet to give any argument other than "those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian"

First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.

Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.

Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?

And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.

You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?

Contrarian about what? Who are the contestants? I don't understand your comment.

What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?

Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.

Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.

Of all the things in your comment, getting right the "you probably call yourself a centrist" is the least significant part. You're wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.

Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.

Because guess what. You can't fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.

As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There's lots of shades of grey.

And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.

There is no contradiction.

Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.

You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.

You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.

Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.