> No, the democratic electoral base is consistently and loudly complaining that after the primaries, most democrat candidates become moderates in the general election
Actually, about the same number of Democrats say their candidates are too liberal as not liberal enough. E.g. for Harris, both numbers hover between 10 and 15 percent.
The not liberal enough cohort is especially loud, particularly online, but the data shows candidates end up about at the primary voter average, as you might expect.
? He moved them because his wife asked him to, because his wife didn't want the police to find them, because they spoke to her motive. So it would have obstructed the investigation by making it harder to prove her motive.
Like how is this complicated? Somebody commits a crime and then calls you and says "Hey can you hide X so the cops don't find it?" Always a crime to hide X in these circumstances.
In this case, the roommate conspired to setup an ambush of police officers, an ambush which resulted in one of the police officers being shot in the neck. The roommate didn't "attend a protest" except by the broadest possible definition.
It's a crime to deliberately conceal another crime, whether you do it by raking leaves, deleting Internet posts, or setting your car on fire. It's called accessory after the fact.
Yes, you ban some legitimate customers with v4. But the span between the smallest allocations and biggest allocations is much smaller, so simple strategies (like banning the bad address) scale further.
It's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.
It's not possible, technically, to run effective anti-cheat server-side. Clients need precise enemy location data for things like sound effects. The server can't tell if the client is using the data for unfair purposes or not.
> I recently got locked out of my machine because logging in with the mandatory Microsoft account-backed primary user of my machine didn't work anymore. It said I was offline and I had to use the "previous password" even though I didn't have a previous password for that account
Not sure what's so confusing here... When Windows is online, it checks your password against the cloud and updates the local store. When Windows is offline, it checks your password against a local store. By previous password, Windows just means the password you used on the last successful login for the user on that machine.
> when you look at the whole of human political history
When you look at the whole of human political history, the vast majority of politican systems have been authoritarian. Anybody who supports a system of government where average people get to vote (as both the Republicans and Democrats do) is part of the super ultra far left.
You forgot to include an argument in your comment. I cited specific positive impacts (tax revenue) but you just talked about negative impact in the abstract, without citing anything specific, and then went on a rant about how the world works.
The anti-email authenticity standards gang has always smelled like the anti-TLS gang to me.