credo

joined 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (4 children)

Because people point out how bad the website is but refuse to post the video link for some reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHIxyGgSU90

[–] [email protected] 14 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

What is that- double strand? Weak.

B-

Edit: For the uninitiated.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

How come we don’t call cruise missiles, “suicide rockets”?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 14 hours ago

Hey, you guys showed up on “the front page” again. Real sorry about that.

But, hey. IMO, lemmy is anarchism. So there you have it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago

So DOGE is getting cut then?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well, don’t set any data centers on fire.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (5 children)

That’s too many positions to research for just one race. Five to six would probably be about the right amount of candidates for a single seat RCV.

I think [open] primaries still have a place to help weed out the field and narrow in on specific candidates.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

You added a zero (to yesterday’s tally).

And is casualties, not deaths. Casualties includes wounded.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I hear it’s going to make a comeback soon.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 days ago (4 children)

It’s too complicated to say “a surplus”.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

I don’t think there is room for any more text.

I hope OP gets it right this time.

 

For the first time since 538 published our presidential election forecast for Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, Trump has taken the lead (if a very small one) over Harris. As of 3 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 18, our model gives Trump a 52-in-100 chance of winning the majority of Electoral College votes. The model gives Harris a 48-in-100 chance.

 

It’s kinda how you read the name, innit?

 
view more: next ›