I wouldn’t say RISC-OS or EmuTOS would be sensible options for new development unless the point is to develop for them (I wrote a couple programs to use Tektronix 4014 graphics the other day in order to use Tektronix 4014 graphics). I was thinking about reusing existing OSs and their stacks.
While I don't have a subscription to it (I haven't justified $50/year for that to myself) you will see that "youse" comes up with an "explore more" for Great Lakes, North Midland, and Northeast and "youse-all" shows up as Middle Atlantic.
It's very much perceived as a vaguely "redneck" or "hoser" way of speaking here.
Another similar dialect isogloss-ish that often goes with that is dropping the past-tense "I saw" and replacing it with the past-participle "I seen". Or, alternatively, another way of putting it is that it's dropping the "have" in "I've seen"
Middle class parents and teachers definitely scolded kids for speaking this way when I was growing up. Was seen as lower class.
I'm not American, but to me this looks like a preposterous take, when the Democrats had Cheney and a pile of other Republicans lined up in what looks more to me like a coalition than getting the endorsement of a bizarre personality-cult fringe candidate.
It depends on your perspective. Dick Cheney is generally considered persona non gratta due to his role in pushing the US into forever wars during the Bush Jr years. The Left hated him during the Bush and Obama years, the Right came around to hating him during the Obama and Trump years.
Trump Republicans very much dislike Liz Cheney for being completely against Trump during J6 investigations, and recent news implicates Liz Cheney in having tampered with lawyer relations for one the J6 testifiers [1,2]. Right-leaning commentary during the J6 investigations considered them sham investigations with the Republicans on the J6 committee often called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), as those Republicans were anti-Trump.
This is the perspective that makes the Chenys supporting Democrats seem ridiculous. Other republicans supporting the Democrats generally have pro-war big government views which are largely incompatible with the new Trump Republican base.
I'll disagree that this was just an "endorsement of bizzare personality-cult fringe candidate" as these individuals all have some political pull and have been given substantial positions in the upcoming administrations.
Cheney is just one person in a long list of republicans who endorsed Harris[1], and these people were part of a much longer list of republicans who opposed Trump[2].
Meanwhile The Trump-endorsing 'coalition' individuals in question are wildly unserious people, to the point that they're going to be laughed out of their senate confirmation hearings if they don't withdraw beforehand.
This is correct, there is an unfortunate acceptance of a lot of political mythology that I believe explains the results of the election (as we see above).
The GOP couldn't even form a coalition with itself, you saw a lot of people within the GOP who wouldn't endorse their candidate (the most stark example being the former VP). The democratic nominee coalition built to a fault. Many point to exactly this, and the failure to scorch the opposition to the degree warranted, as the reason for the loss.
RFK is your garden variety opportunist grifter, as are the entire confederacy of scammers and dunces (no offense, this is strictly a factual assessment) who are now on their way to positions of power based purely on their loyalty.
Yes, and the blame is always placed on some cabal or minority group or political tendency that the conspiracy theorist dislikes... rather than looking at anything systematic.
Which actually has the ultimate effect of blunting change rather than fostering it.
The issue I think there is never the specific claim but the manner in which Jones makes these pronouncements linking a fact like this to broader conspiracies and politics. That somehow this shit is a left-wing / liberal conspiracy blah blah blah when it's just run of the mill (and far more insidious and systematic) corporate malfeasance in the search of profits.
He espouses a lot that much of the modern "left wing", or at least what is sold as "left wing" (but is not our typical progressive/liberal friend we know), comes right out of technocratic think tanks.
There's nothing new about that. That's the whole schtick the populist far right has had forever.
Look up Lyndon LaRouche, or hell Mussolini & Hitler. They start from what seems like legitimate concerns and often from what seems like a pro working class agenda, but ultimately the purpose is more power to the Market and more power to people themselves or people like themselves, and usually there's this huge socially regressive aspect to it especially attacking minorities, huge amounts of anti-Semitism, yada yada yada
Hitler has a whole part of Mein Kampf where he talks about a communist trade union protest and how his explicit goal is to capture that same anti-establishment anger and form of organizing but direct it in the service of the Nation and the Leader. Hence keeping around the "socialist" symbolism in the NAZI name and symbolism long after they murdered any actual "socialists" in the party.
Instrumental reason FTW
reply