It’s the 4-in-1 special

There are plenty of users who don’t even know what the Eternal September was

I’d be one of them. I’ve got some reading to do later.

I’m pretty sure it does. I remember thinking “of course they would implement it like that” when I first encountered a short as a regular video.

Speaking for myself here:

• Shorts loop automatically, something I find annoying
• Shorts have loads of UI over the video by default; while there is a “clear screen” button in the context menu, it doesn’t persist, and is extra interaction that a normal video doesn’t require
• It’s easier to scrub through a normal video on mobile; while there is a progress bar at the bottom of a short, you can’t drag up on that bar to get fine-grained seeking

This is my “old man tells at cloud” moment and I’m okay with that.

Ahh, I forgot about GOG, fair enough

Sure, but at least Steam allows you to burn backups of games to a disc. Haven’t seen other platforms let you do that yet

ahh so that’s why charizard is so hot

New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.

Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland’s book?

I agree with everything you said, but I’m not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I’m talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.

Seems like the “state-ratifying conventions” route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that’s ignoring that the Constitution doesn’t regulate them.

Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?

Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?

… is it weird that I’ve been thinking about this for the last decade? I’m not even American.

Ahh, that makes sense, thanks!

Nah it’s fine, I’m getting used to having to find workarounds to use my VPN. For example, my GP’s online system blocks any connections from outside the UK so I end up using my work laptop

Oh, does Imgur not block Proton? I thought all VPN IPs were in a list somewhere and blocked en-masse, I wonder why Mullvad doesn’t work then

Can someone repost this using something other than Imgur? They block the UK and Mullvad (though if someone is using Mullvad and can access it, let me know what server you’re using please)

EDIT: nevermind, I can see it through the web version of Lemmy, just not through Sync or Imgur directly

Why is the text of the summary completely different from the contents of the article?

I don’t think it is. I think you just missed that Merc’s original comment was a joke about the misspelling in the OP, not an actual description of Bluesky

I think using a method of proportional representation is the most effective defence against gerrymandering. You cannot have unrepresentative elections when the system has representation built into it.

However, that would be difficult to do in the US from what I understand. There would need to be several changes to the law to give it a fighting chance.

I’ve had my Google account for over a decade. At some point, I noticed my YouTube handle was just my name, and I don’t remember setting it to that.

On pretty much all websites, I have a default username I try to use, but I don’t remember getting that option when making a Google account

This might be getting into the weeds a little, but to me, “bottle of water” implies a single-use bottle already filled with water, while “water bottle” implies a bottle that is made to be (re)filled with water