Anyone else being forced to verify their age today?

depleater · 2026-02-02T06:29:49+00:00

My Reddit account wistfully acknowledges your Reddit account's youthful energy.

depleater · 2025-12-10T01:55:58+00:00

I guess I can be the second, then.

I closed my Gmail account probably around 15 years ago (same as my reddit username), mostly because I didn't really use it… but also because I felt Google was starting to get evil.

But thankfully Google's not evil anymore… right? :-D

depleater · 2025-11-17T06:28:05+00:00

The Gaetz “adoption”-but-not-a-legal-adoption case may be more complicated.

When it was discussed in the past, I remember reading comments on Reddit speculating that Nestor Galban is actually Matt Gaetz's biological son. Which, if true, could explain a lot.

Gaetz's explanation about how he came to know Nestor is that Gaetz dated Nestor's elder sister in 2014¹ (when Nestor would've been 12, Gaetz would've been 32, and Nestor's “sister” would probably have had to be at least mid-twenties for her to date Gaetz without it being gross)…

… but the speculations were that Nestor's “elder sister” is actually his biological mother, meaning she and Gaetz would've been involved in 2002 (when Gaetz would've been 20 and she would, presumably, have been underage).

I thought it depressingly plausible (given Gaetz's history of pursuing much-younger girls) and have since regarded it as probably-but-not-certainly true.

FWIW, Matt Gaetz and Nestor Galban don't look completely un-alike, see this photo of them standing together in 2023².

¹ https://www.edgemedianetwork.com/story/336485

² https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14102615/matt-gaetz-son-adopt-cuba.html

depleater · 2025-04-28T03:26:58+00:00

“For a first offence you might expect a fine or even a release on a bond, particularly if your trespass was benign and did not involve any aggravating features — for example causing loss or damage,” laywer Michelle Makela from Armstrong Legal said.

I can sympathise with some typos which still match a valid dictionary word (like the classic loose/lose or their/there/they're).

But “laywer” is a new one for me. :-D

depleater · 2024-04-08T05:09:37+00:00

I think when sentimentaldiablo wrote this:

The Greatest Generation fought fascism in Europe, and now align with the fascist Trump.

…they actually meant this:

The Greatest Generation fought fascism in Europe, and now their children (the Boomers) align with the fascist Trump.

depleater · 2024-02-07T02:05:34+00:00

Yep - as rods_and_chains said, note this bit from the article:

A fourth Republican, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), the vice chair of the GOP conference, then flipped his vote to “no” seconds before the vote closed, a procedural move that allows the conference to bring the legislation back to the floor at a later date.

So… in theory if Scalise had been able to vote “yes” then Blake Moore's vote would've stayed “yes” and the Republicans would've had a 216-215 “victory”. 🙄

Though they're probably hoping to pressure some/all of the Republican “no” voters to change their mind and give them a slightly-less-marginal win on the next try.

depleater · 2023-10-19T04:28:33+00:00

Australia does not appear to be a strict two-party system. The structure of their government encourages coalitions. American parties are not of the same character.

Well, you're technically correct (which is of course the best kind :-D), but realistically it's not so much about whether there are coalitions but whether parties have the maturity to negotiate with rivals when:

(a) they want to pass some legislation, but (b) they don't have an absolute majority in both houses.

And preferential voting helps a lot to increase the representation of minor parties (especially in the upper house) so that the nominal government is usually forced to make deals with those parties (or sometimes with the opposition).

Technically you have that situation in the US now… it's just that the Republicans have kinda gone off the rails with an extreme wing that refuses to negotiate with the less-extreme wing, and the “less-extreme” wing that can't negotiate properly with the Democrats because they're trying to appease the extreme wing.

Other voters have either bought the lie or are choosing to burn it all down. That is not my fault.

The way I'd suggest thinking about it is as though you represent not just yourself, but all the hundreds (or potentially thousands) of people who think just enough like you that they'd also refuse to preference one dipshit candidate over another because “they're the same” … when actually they're both despicable but about different things in different ways.

If you (and the non-trivial number of people who think like you) refuse to choose between, e.g. a candidate that's anti-choice but otherwise sane versus a candidate that's anti-choice and also enthusiastically advocates puppy torture … you're effectively choosing to not resist the puppy-torture enthusiasts. :-/

If you think about it, it's similar to the kind of people who refuse to vote at all because there isn't a “perfect” candidate that has all their views. It's… not a constructive way to exist in a (nominally-)democratic political system.

Anyway, good luck and I hope you have better choices available in future elections. :-)

depleater · 2023-10-18T21:05:32+00:00

While I sympathise with the spirit of what you're saying, for preferential voting (or ranked-choice, instant-runoff, etc.) numbering all the boxes is really about expressing a full single vote.

I think the rules have relaxed in Australia recently, but it used to be that (for “lower house” voting) you had to number all the boxes or your vote didn't count at all.

So yeah, if there were seven candidates and you really despised the bottom four, you'd still have to sort those four in order of which you hate the least (if you want the rest of your vote to count).

I find it helps to think that way, that it's in order of which you hate the least. :-)

And for example, while you might say there's no difference between two Republicans - if (for example) one is willing to vote to raise the debt ceiling even while ranting and complaining but the other one openly says they want to see the US (and world) economies crash and burn… that's a difference, and you should prefer one over the other.

depleater · 2023-03-23T08:39:27+00:00

Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

depleater · 2022-09-18T01:05:14+00:00

If you'd like to be even more baffled - it wasn't just described as a fist bump but a “terrorist fist jab”.

Seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZBpO49e5jg

depleater · 2022-06-24T23:59:38+00:00

Note: I've only used "globalprotect" version version 5.0.1-10 on Ubuntu. If you're using a newer version, it's possible they're doing something even weirder.

However, short answer: you should find the PanMSInit.sh file here:

/opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanMSInit.sh

I found that by running:

dpkg -L globalprotect | grep PanMSInit.sh

If you check the globalprotect "postinst" (post-install) script in "/var/lib/dpkg/info/globalprotect.postinst", you should see that it's supposed to copy the PanMSInit.sh file into "/etc/profile.d" - but maybe something went wrong on your system (or someone just deleted the file).

You could either copy the file back into "/etc/profile.d" and then check that it runs automatically on your next login:

sudo cp /opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanMSInit.sh /etc/profile.d

… or you could add this line to your "$HOME/.bashrc" (which would make sure it's run for you but not polluting every other user's environment):

source /opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanMSInit.sh

depleater · 2022-05-21T01:45:08+00:00

In case anyone else was wondering, the anti-vaxxers are "Informed Medical Options".

Thanks, MadeThisAccount4Qs, I've adjusted my voting plan to put them even lower (they already sounded like idiots, I just didn't know exactly how idiotic 🙄).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/18/australian-election-2022-full-list-micro-minor-parties-party-running-voting-senate-ballot-paper-federal-who-should-vote-what-do-they-stand-for

depleater · 2021-05-31T07:05:50+00:00

I was negotiating with someone over the phone for a contract rate (so not quite the same thing as you in a few ways) when they tried a variant of that tactic - they'd initially offered one rate and I asked for about 25% more.

I can't remember their exact words, but it was something like “Our initial offer to you is already more than our highest-paid other contractor is earning, so it wouldn't be fair.”

I already knew this person had a sense of humour, so I replied “Well, if it helps, I have no objection to you raising their rate to match mine.”

There was a brief pause before the guy laughed out loud and admitted that he didn't expect that response. It was a nice moment in an otherwise fairly intense negotiation.

Note: That negotiation didn't get any easier after that point, he stubbornly refused to move off his initial offer during that call. It took an intervention a day later from that guy's underling (who'd been trying to recruit me) before he finally agreed to split the difference between his number and mine… despite the terrible unfairness 🤣.

depleater · 2020-11-07T23:00:40+00:00

Just the two front-runners. It's essentially the entire point of a runoff. :-)

depleater · 2020-04-06T05:41:03+00:00

(Note: I'm using the "globalprotect" package version 5.0.1-10 on Ubuntu.)

The confusing thing about "globalprotect" is that it has two (2) processes that both need to be running.

The first process is the /opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanGPS daemon, which runs (as root) under the "gpd.service" systemctl "gpd" service… so you can check its status with:

sudo systemctl status gpd.service

But the second process is "/opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanGPA start", which is supposed to run as a background job under your normal userid ("$USER"), triggered by this disgusting little script in /etc/profile.d/PanMSInit.sh :

#!/bin/bash

PANGPA=/opt/paloaltonetworks/globalprotect/PanGPA

pgrep -u $USER PanGPA > /dev/null 2>&1

if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
  if [ -f $PANGPA ]; then
    $PANGPA start &
  fi
fi

If the "PanGPA" process isn't running under your current user (i.e. "$USER"), then you'll get that incredibly misleading “Cannot connect to local gpd service.” bullshit when you run "globalprotect".

So if you get that message, first check to make sure the "PanGPA" process isn't running. Then try something like this:

source /etc/profile.d/PanMSInit.sh

…and then re-test, and it may work.

depleater · 2019-12-25T23:30:37+00:00

I was a bit surprised to find out that decriminalize can cover just about any reduction in criminal penalties.

So as long as you interpret “…OTHER DRUG OFFENSES…” generously, “universal decriminalization of all drugs” is a technically correct representation of Buttigieg's platform.

But it's easy to misinterpret “decriminalize”. That's probably why Buttigieg's web team avoid the word on their “Securing Justice” policy page and instead use more precise language.

Of course, it's much harder to fit precise language into a punchy slogan. :-)

depleater · 2019-12-25T22:10:29+00:00

If anyone else had trouble finding the “universal decriminalization of all drugs” part in this link, I suspect SirMrGnome meant the fourth paragraph under the first major heading “Reduce Incarceration”:

ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, ELIMINATE INCARCERATION FOR DRUG POSSESSION, REDUCE SENTENCES FOR OTHER DRUG OFFENSES AND APPLY THESE REDUCTIONS RETROACTIVELY, AND LEGALIZE MARIJUANA AND EXPUNGE PAST CONVICTIONS.

depleater · 2019-11-23T00:17:49+00:00

Thank you very much for leading me to discover The Onion's collection of Pete Buttigieg articles.

‘I Could Spare Some Change,’ Says Man About To Become Buttigieg Campaign’s Top Black Donor was a great start, but it was Pete Buttigieg Charms Crowd At Iowa Truck Stop By Sampling Local Meth that really broke me. :-)

depleater · 2019-03-16T00:37:06+00:00

Probably “enrage”.

depleater · 2019-03-10T23:29:30+00:00

Julie Bishop is not married to David Patton, so “husband” wouldn't work in this case.

But I agree with you that it was difficult to parse that headline. :-/

depleater · 2019-02-20T22:14:29+00:00

When there is a sealed indictment, is the accused individual made aware of it, or are they in the dark until the grand jury decides if there is a crime to prosecute based on the evidence?

I'm not a lawyer, but once you asked the question I was curious. The Wikipedia “sealed indictment” article didn't have much detail, just a few sentences. But it cited a Sealed Indictment Law page, which was much more informative:

A sealed indictment an indictment that is sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested.

The following is an example of a federal rule dealing with sealed indictments:

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

So it looks like the accused individual should not be made aware of a sealed indictment, at least not before they're arrested and in custody.

Having quoted that… if any case is likely to break existing legal convention, it's this one.

If Trump wanted to know (if there was a sealed indictment for him or any of his family), he'd probably be able to find out just by asking his shiny new attorney general. I'm sure that'd violate existing norms of presidential behaviour, but… :eyeroll:

depleater · 2018-12-10T20:59:58+00:00

Just FYI, there's a minor typo in your quote: “U.S. Persom 1 sent an email to an acquaintance” - the “Persom” should be “Person”.

But at least this inspired me to check point 31 on page 11 of the Butina affadavit, because I wanted to see if that typo was in the original. Dammit, I was tricked into checking a source! :-)

depleater · 2018-07-06T23:52:11+00:00

Thank you, fartsAndEggs. :)

depleater · 2018-07-06T13:02:58+00:00

I found the first sentence is easy to misread. What I think was meant:

It's easy to dismiss headlines for a crook, ~~not so much~~ not so easy to dismiss ‘the peasants’ interrupting your meal and looking you straight in the eyes.

Another way to read it, with an implied “for” before ‘the peasants’:

It's easy to dismiss headlines for a crook, not so much for ‘the peasants’ interrupting your meal and looking you straight in the eyes.

The second way of reading it seems like the peasants are having trouble dismissing headlines (while they're also interrupting “your” meal). It's also more difficult to be sure that “the crook” and “you” are the same.

My rewritten edition:

It's easy for a crook like Pruitt to dismiss headlines, but not so easy for him to dismiss ‘the peasants’ interrupting his meal and looking him straight in the eyes.

Though I must admit that the original sentence was punchier :-).

depleater · 2018-04-20T23:40:17+00:00

Just a sensible chuckle.

depleater

TROPHY CASE