Sure, but a new battery isn’t that expensive

Thanks! I thought the problem was the T2 chip and I thought the non touchbar macs had them too, but it’s been a while since I looked into this. I have a machine with a broken touchbar that could plausibly run something that isn’t macOS and was very disappointed when I realised I essentially had to install special distros with some kernel patch or something on it.

What do the v3 and v4 in the architectures mean?

this is literally what our stroller looks like (baby redacted for privacy)

This is a pity because MacBooks pro from ca 2013-2015 are great; cheap second hand because they’re out of support in macOS, good screens, excellent build quality and fast enough for anything you want to do with them.

I wouldn’t recommend macs in general. Anything with a touch bar (intels from ca 2018-19 and on) are tricky to get to run Linux at all, anything with apple silicon is very experimental, and the older models have Broadcom Wi-Fi that doesn’t ship with drivers on any distribution I know of.

Oh, I didn’t mean totally lose support, I agree and that would suck. I meant lose support for the occupation and operations into Gaza. I see no problem defending Israel from an invasion same as I support Ukraine against Russia’s invasion and previously protested against the US’ various invasions and operations.

That depends what you mean by “Israel”. I don’t think it can be an exclusively Jewish ethnostate. That means excluding Palestinians who have equal claims to the territory and I don’t see how that can lead to anything but oppression and further cycles of violence.

But sure it can exist as a state. They just can’t do military occupation etc.

Oh but we can definitely sketch something, for sure.

• There has to be some degree of truth and reconciliation, and that will not look like “and all the bad people get punished forever”. There’s plenty of sides and plenty of atrocities and people have to somehow get over them. That’s fucking hard and will take generations, but it’s been done before and it can be done again.
• Israel will, technically, have to give up the most. They’re occupying territory in explicit violation of international law, for starters, but they also have a lot more resources generally. Not to mention their export industry in arms, including anti-riot stuff, surveillance tech etc that they explicitly test on their simmering conflict next door. The only way this happens realistically is when the current Israeli line loses national and international support.
• there has to be an expansion of practical rights of Palestinians, and probably in the end a one-state solution where they become Israeli citizens (in a country probably not called Israel anymore) and have equal rights, including voting rights. But at the very least the blockade of Gaza has to end, and Palestinians need the same access to wealth, education, etc as Israelis. Otherwise that’s perfect conditions for resentment that will only get worse.
• this is a special case of the first bullet point, but Palestinians who were driven from their homes during the establishment of Israel will also need some degree of economic compensation for that, and ideally the ability to move back to where they were originally living

The both sides attitude is unhelpful. Israelis and Palestinians, in and out of Gaza, all have equal rights to safety, security and a life worth living. Israelis have the right to freedom of movement and not getting bombed, and so do Palestinians.

This isn’t a great metaphor. My dog is a singular individual and another dog isn’t my dog, so you can’t represent it with numbers. A carbon molecule is equivalent to another carbon molecule and can be abstracted.

That said, carbon credits sure seems like making up numbers to make something bad look better, just not in this way.

(Den uppenbara slutsatsen man måste dra och som jag drar är: fungerar som det är tänkt)

Det svarar dock inte på varför riksdagen och regeringen inte använder metoder de har tillgång till (regleringsbrev till SBAB för att pressa räntor på lån på bekostnad av bankernas jättehöga vinster, insatser mot kartellbildning i olika led för livsmedelsinköp, mer bostadsbyggande för att få ner hyror och bostadspriser, utbyggd kollektivtrafik för att få ner priset på resor och transporter, priskontroll av livsmedel och/eller el, ”Sverigepriser” på el, osv osv, alltihop definitivt inom ramarna för helt normal politik som vid olika tillfällen bedrivits tidigare).

Det svarar också inte på varför Riksbanken mer eller mindre bara använder räntan. Har de verkligen exakt en kran för att styra hela ekonomin?

Åh det är ännu värre än så! Inflationen drivs snarare av prisökningar för att tjäna mer pengar snarare än av att konsumenterna har för mycket pengar så den höjda styrräntan funkar också inte, eller i alla fall inte så bra.

Som jag förstår det är det här mer eller mindre 100% av ideologiska skäl. Vi har riggat upp ett banksystem enligt nyliberal modell där de i princip bara har spaken ”höj/sänk ränta” och då är det den man använder för något måste de ju göra.

Om staten ville fixa problemet ”bankerna saftar på med räntor och tjänar mer än de nånsin gjort förut” skulle de också kunna ändra direktiven för SBAB för att åtminstone pressa ner räntorna lite och på så sätt i alla fall minska övervinsterna, men det gör de inte heller.

Se även: Podcasten Värdet av pengar om krisen och Andreas Cervenkas bok Girig-Sverige.

Frankly I’ve been looking for a while now and I can’t figure out how to subscribe to a community?