The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?

Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.

As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.

In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.

Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.

So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.

Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.

Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.

They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.

So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?

Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.

Odd, please cite your qualifications.

You know, the ones that makes your opinion more valid than the opinion expressed by the (dissenting) supreme court justices directly involved in the case?

what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

Things that exist, can be scientifically proven. We have evidence for the presence of dark matter. This is a placeholder for something we don’t know what it is yet.

We don’t have evidence of gods in any way that can be tested.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” - hitchens razor

Bad faith debating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

No. There’s a whole mythology that Smith alluded to. That mythology and its alleged revelation were supposedly there before smith or anyone else. Smith is a charlatan who started the myth.

Jesus’ myth was started by alleged followers (being generous) at least 50+ years after his alleged existence.

All of the myths attributed to yeshua are torn from other sources and are a patchwork of stories that held attention at the time.

It’s more likely yeshua was a myth told by charlatans who needed money to keep spreading the wonderful story of a Jew who could have ruled the Roman empire but fed the poor and healed others instead.

If it’s possible, reproduce the claims. Until you can produce evidence of something, they are unfounded claims.

The Heaven’s Gate cult wrote things down and had a whole group of folks that would confirm the beliefs they had.

According to you, the burden of proof is on society.

So I challenge you in the same way you’re attempting here.

Prove the Heaven’s Gate cult wrong. They made very reasonable claims(according to them) and it’s up to you to prove them wrong.

That’s what you are doing. Until you can prove someone is able to do the things in your text(s). It’s a fable. You’re still arguing in bad faith.

New topic: provide your initial rules and conditions for entering responses.

Happened overnight too. /S

This isn’t an accurate account of history.

If you’ve studied any of the Roman empire in antiquity you’re actively acting in bad faith.

If not, why are you making things up? Why are you actively lying?

Constantine is reported as making it the state religion 300+ years after the alleged existence of yeshua.

Fact: when science holds an incorrect idea, based on observable evidence - the idea changes to match reality. If there were observable evidence of your imaginary sky guy, scientists would update their idea or theory to match the observable evidence.

Saying that there might be elephants living on top of clouds doesn’t make it true. Entertaining the idea without proof is not science or even theory.

Even with perfect faith, elephants still live on terra firma.

Science is about testable repeatable actions and concepts. Science describes what can be observed.

What can be observed and tested in your claims?

You’re making an incorrect assumption that says the burden of proof is not yours. I’m not making absurd claims about things that defy all logic and physical limits.

You are. The burden is on you.

Your invisible helper cannot carry this burden for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Joseph Smith certainly looked at golden tablets to reveal the holy truth that black people have dark skin due to a curse upon them. /s

I’d argue there are contradictions all over the Bible.

Here’s a list:

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html

They’re not trying to force everyone to use the alternative product with this message. I think you can export the podcast subscriptions to a number of clients.

A lot of old consoles are actually based on standard CPUs for the most part. Look at the history of the 6502 for example. Emulating the hardware can be done if time is taken to reverse engineer all the layers into an emulator.

Part of the issue, to me, can be if all the work is done and then copyright disputes arise- all work has to be removed from the public.

Redhat and Debian are separate projects, tmk.

This was a fast response, and doesn’t cover the whole scope of handling networking in docker. As mentioned elsewhere there is a different network philosophy for Standalone Containers & Overlay networking.