For every cause, there exists some possible circumstance such that one or more individuals having a miscalculation would benefit that cause.

Proof: Take desired result R. Assume there exists some person P who is opposed to R. Let there be some action that P can take such that R becomes impossible. If there are no downsides to this action, then R will only occur if P makes a miscalculation. ⬜

Thus, if your maxim holds, then there is no such thing as a good cause.

A discriminant that labels all causes as “bad” is not useful.

Therefore, your maxim does not serve as a useful discriminant.

QED

LMFAO

Maybe you should save this for the day after the election friend. People being delusional about how good Kamala will be is actually really good for us strategically at the moment.

I’m pretty sure the moon was always there.

Go to the breaker box and pull the big one labeled “main”. Then call the fire department.

Was this released in 2022? No? Why does the tittle say “already”, then?

I think the meaning is fairly obvious; an imperfect ally is better than an all-out enemy. If you wanna do politics, you need to learn who you can safely ally with, who your actual friends are, and who will always be your enemy.

Edit: oh wow, look at all those comments on ML. I wonder why this person would object to lesser evil rhetoric favoring the democrats.

The person running for office is a politician? Say it isn’t so!

I wonder why this article is being released before the election, rather than later when the cooling of support isn’t extremely likely to lead to a strategic disadvantage? 🤔 Oh well, it’s probably just a coincidence. 🤷‍♂️ Definitely no ulterior motives here. 👍

*Coffin. ⚰

I don’t remember where, but I’ve read they’re funded by oil companies. I think it’s actually surprisingly effective, because generating outrage is the point of demonstrations like this. Also, iirc, all their targets so far have been behind protective barriers, so no real damage either. Should they be inconveniencing oil execs? Sure! (I’d honestly prefer if they [comment cannot legally be completed], but that’s probably asking too much.) But their current strategy gets more attention, and more attention gets better awareness. No one cares about a rich asshole. Everyone cares about world-famous art.

I think the story is from 2015. I haven’t read it, but the title makes that seem likely.

“So what’s it like living in Russia?” “Oh, I can’t complain.”

Why is he still in the news?

Well it’s a shame you don’t have any authority, so you can’t force people to go along with your unhinged demands.

Judging from the headline, it was probably by being stinky.

Somehow my response wound up as a Direct comment.

TYVM!

My evaluation is that Trump will be less capable of doing the work of campaigning and people will be less interested.

I have an idea for a project that requires a suppliment to my utterly inadequate creative writing skills, and I have had abysmal luck finding a co-author. I don’t want to use the LLMs available online because I have learned not to rely on a tool that’s could disappear without notice. The part about it being potentially illegal was a joke and nothing more.

Have you considered that you can’t tell what someone does or doesn’t understand by a comment?

That’s entirely fair. I’m annoyed today, and the reply about the wrench just made it worse. My apologies.

I think you’re missing the subtle distinction between “can” and “should.”

To answer your question, I have friends that find them entertaining, and at least one who uses them in projects to do stuff, but don’t know the details. Have you considered that something you don’t understand might not be useless and evil? Your personal ignorance says nothing about a subject.