s/subject/object - there's no objective standard for hatred. I find it funny that Trump was pretty much universally liked until he ran for President as a Republican. If you go back to his interviews in the 80's and 90's, he's pretty much saying now what he said back then, so what changed?
In the 1990s he said he was very pro-choice. That's changed.
In some more fundamental sense, you are right - he hasn't changed that much. Doonesbury, 16 September 1987 characterized him as "I'm just a billionaire developer exercising trial balloons! If I were running [for President] though, it'd be as an original, as a beloved archetype - the American Landlord!" https://readingdoonesbury.com/2018/06/01/selling-reagan-to-b...
You couldn't have read Doonesbury at the time without knowing that a lot of people didn't like Trump, but did things for him because of his money.
Certainly some people did like him. Some of those trial balloons went over really well with racists, like the malicious Central Park 5 ad. ("even a fool can become a multi-millionaire." and 'Trump "was the fire starter" in 1989, as "common citizens were being manipulated and swayed into believing that we were guilty."' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case ).
As one of the examples of how we know a lot of people didn't like the short fingered vulgarian, here's a 50 second piece featured in "Alive from Off Center" in 1991, starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY7pKQ-Imco&t=559 and ending with the assertion that names like Donald Trump ("a man who can buy his cake and eat it too") "are just fancy names for irrelevance".
IMO what changed is the economic insecurity as the New Deal and Great Society were torn down from the rise of neoliberal thought in the 1970s, funded by rich reactionaries who want to return to a pre-New Deal America, and embraced by both major parties who are more beholden to rich donors than the electorate. As President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." That continues to be used to redirect anger towards minorities, instead of at the rich people, and Trump, as you point out, has for decades been a master at picking that pocket.
Dunno, I've been trying it off and on since it was first released in like 2018. I don't theres any particularly noticeable changes from 6 months ago specifically.
I also used Emacs way back in the day but have been Vim/Neovim for the last 5 years or so. But I recently started a new Lisp project so revisited Lem, actually set it up the way I want (with LazyVim-like bindings), and found with my changes and comfort hacking on it (it's all Common Lisp top to bottom so it's easy to change) that it can replace LazyVim for me now. Just using the ncurses front end BTW.
We just had a death on the road, from a driver hitting a cyclist in a group. I'm a life-long cyclists, and I now am somewhat fearful about cycling on the road. I see so many groups that take an entire lane and not even care about the cars behind them - it's easy to understand the frustration of the drivers. It's a knotty problem, I wish we had more bicycle lanes.
Obviously I wasn't there for the "taking the lane" circumstances you've seen, but where I live there are very few sections of road where it would be safe for a vehicle to attempt to occupy the lane while a group of cyclists are in it, and cars should be overtaking instead. It's no more difficult for a car to overtake when the cyclists are "taking the lane."
But there's a value in having a defined, stable language definition. Being able to rely on the basic language not changing is a feature, not a bug. Though it does mean you have to sometimes search for a good lib if you don't have a feature built into the language.
My comment said nothing about language permanence, though I would say that some measure of evolution can sometimes be for the better. I doubt many people would prefer programming in Java 1.4 over Java 21.
Healthy cells CAN turtle-up, whereas cancer cells engage in unregulated reproduction. Also, some cancer cells can only consume glucose. Which, in a fasted state, would mean that the majority of energy would be in ketones(if the individual were metabolically healthy), starving the cancer cells to death.
Because the cancers cells adapt! (fast reproduction and high mutation rate of the cancerous cells make that process quicker than antibiotics resistance)
I spent an enjoyable afternoon on Kailua beach snorkeling for garbage. I found a fishing pole, a complete snorkeling set, and bunches of other stuff. I just grabbed what I found, took it back to the beach, and dumped it in the garbage can. Very satisfying day.
If even a Democratically-led California is doing this, how can you point fingers at just the GOP? It's endemic to the system, and not restricted to just one party.
Republicans are always trying to increase and protect oil subsidizes, cheer "drill baby drill", and have social media tools peddling their bs who are funded by foreign influence campaigns. The Democats may not be perfect, but they are much more likely to cut oil subsidies or at least subsidize solar and other renewables to balance. This is especially true as the next generation takes over by primarying the tepid fossils currently in office. Meanwhile, dear leader Dumpty likes to suggest windmills cause cancer because he doesn't like what they look like on the horizon of his golf dumps. Saying this is a "both sides" problem is laughable.
Yup. 46.8 GW photovoltaic in California and 22.8 GW photovoltaic in Texas. Over twice as much PV in California even though they have higher standards for new construction in general than Texas does.
