The early books the gang is quite small easy to follow and I enjoyed them enough to continue.

But later the cast balloons quite heavily. I did play the games and thought that would be enough, but I’m god awful names at the best of times. So scene with sorceress #15 and Lord #16 in kingdom #4 is usually me thinking “who’s any of that again?”

Partly, it’s because I’m reading by audio in situations where I can’t easily pause and consider. Partly, because the author just spent 3 books telling me these are Eldrich forces for geralt to avoid as best as possible, so why would I try understand them. Partly, because the stories are less interesting to me now as previously mentioned.

I’m on my first read through of the Witcher. I’ve stalled on the tower of swallows though.

It’s almost cyberpunkesque in how much the world hates it’s inhabitants. Which was interesting when it followed cyberpunk themes of “forget thriving, the goal is to survive this world”.

But, the players are in bigger arenas now, so the world is just a shit place to be. I find myself struggling to care about the politics, or follow who’s who. The early books geralt is so apathetic it didn’t matter which kingdom or who’s the prevailing lord. So I ,like geralt, just didn’t care. Now I’m supposed to, good development for geralt. I just don’t want to suddenly learn the names of 40 kingdoms, their kings, recent history etc…

The prevailing magic seems to be the vow, you’re fucked in a fucked world if you break one. Cool concept, I like it, but it does get watered down because the world wants to grind you down anyway. Breaking a vow is just another excuse for the universe to hurt you. I’ll probably push through this and decide if I want to keep going.

No matter who lost in the '24 election, the rich won.

Demonstrated to be untrue. I should have listened to the person telling you why you don’t wrestle pigs… I should have listened to myself when I said American libs have shown me they are closed minded.

Your statements are counterfactual, your accusations are confessions, demonstrated to ignore anything anyone (including you says) and you are completely unreachable. On the whole a waste of my time except to re-teach me a lesson I had obviously forgot

On mobile so you’ll have to forgive format jank.

It depends how each image handles ports if C1 has the ports set up as 1234:100 and C2 has the ports set up as 1234:500 then:

service:

gluetun:

ports:

 - 1234:100 #c1
 - 1235:500 #c2

[…]

Will solve the conflict

Sometimes an image will allow you to edit it’s internal ports with an environment so

service:

gluetun:

ports:

  - 1234:1000 #c1
  -1235:1234 #c2

c1:

environent:

- UI_PORT=1000

[…]

When both contsiners use the same second number, C1: 1234:80, C21235:80, and neither documents suggest how to change that port, I personally haven’t found a way to resolve that conflict.

You have convinced me that you believe that to be true. Furthermore, you have convinced me that you cannot be convinced that it is not true. You are demonstrably unreachable.

As demonstrated we have been led here by you. You haven’t played along with my avoidance of this question, I wasn’t originally asked this question. I pointed out that you ignored their answer and then you got all accusey and semanticky.

Remember when you wanted to make a distinction between “donors” and “money”, you sure dropped that in a hurry. Every accusation is a confession.

Still no response…

Doesn’t respond to a single thing in any previous comment. Every accusation is a confession. This is also just a bald faced lie.

And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:

In the original comment you replied to. They could have done more outreach to determine what dem voters want by wasting less money elsewhere. Reality is you don’t listen to yourself, let alone anyone else. I am over it. Thanks for proving to me, yet again, that talking to American liberals is futile. I can’t dig you out of your dogma at all.

Point 1, exactly my pount, that’s exactly what you did. I demonstrated that to you and now we agree. You’ll notice I keep grounding us in the comments under discussion: “I think your argument is this” and “how does that have relevance to the original comment”. Every accusation is a confession.

Point 2, exactly what you did when you tried labeling my argument a strawman. Ev-ery accusation is a confession.

Who is talking about ignoring people.

Me, continually about you. You ignored the original answer to your question. You ignore my explanation to why it’s a valid answer. You ignore my pointing out you ignoring people to ask who’s talking about ignoring people.

How are you quantifying[…]

You argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question. E-v-e-r-y accusation is a confession.

Again I have to point out…

1 you haven’t until now pointed out that you havent made an arguement. 2 it is absurd to do so. 3 you are a meme

You are quoting something that was never said

It’s a summary, I made that quite plain.

If they come in wool, sign me up. I’ve been pricing up a full set of wool socks and it’s eye-watering. I think I’m going to be asking for wool socks for Christmas/birthdays for a couple years … my mid-life transformation is complete.

“every accusation a confession” is a common refrain to describe conservative behavior

Point 1: You accuse people of avoiding questions (they didn’t), it’s because you avoid questions. The question you avoided

I don’t see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?

The question you asked of them was how to win without donors. Not less donors.

Would you like me to extend to you the courtesy you denied me when accusing me of building a strawman. That “without” is an extention of “fewer” the same way “most” is an extention of “more”. But that would take admitting they did, in fact, answer your question. Would you like to admit that? If so I’m good, that was all I wanted to highlight to you in the first place.

Point 2: you accuse people of building strawmen, I didn’t, it’s because you build strawmen. See above.

Regarding the pivot from “money” to “donors”: did democrats have less donors this election? Just as an aside, what is it that these donors donate, what is it that citizens united allowed these donors to donate, that isn’t money. Donors=money

Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn’t work.

politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. - Oscar Ameringer

Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.

It seems our impasse is that’s I’ve understood, and stated as such, your argument to be “more money, more better” which is counterfactual to this election. You reply

nuh uh, my argument is [defines “more” or uses the word “more”] [synonym for “money” or uses the word money], more better.

I don’t think I can break through that level of double think.

I don’t see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?

This is still feeling like a “more doners is more better” argument which they rejected with a “not this time” reply so no questions were avoided.

No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it’s always a confession.

deleted by creator

I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don’t. The doners don’t need to cost votes.

I don’t see the relevance. So long as people aren’t saying they spend no money, which they didn’t, why bring it up? It still implies a “most money” argument to me.

Edit: I don’t read usernames and it bites me everytime

Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.

Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.

Because of citizens united…

part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?

Edit to answer your question:

How do we win without doners?

They don’t. But, because we’ve established they don’t need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you’ll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don’t need all the money.

Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.

Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.

They didn’t avoid it

They outspent and lost this time.

Is a refutation of the premise. If, as you say, donation money decides elections then the democrats, having gotten and spent more, should have won.

So, did money decide this election win?

A mini pc, a raspberry pi 4, 3*usb HDD (2*8tb mirrored and a 1tb for local back up), some Netgear router, a whole lot of spaghetti.

I’m obviously not going to make your argument for you.

Having it one sided clearly doesn’t defeat the purpose of votes. When you went to the ballot box do you upvote your chosen candidate and also downvote your least favourite?

Not having downvotes is a simple statement: “If you do not like this thing, we don’t care”. Report the spam and block the creators you don’t like, simples.

So you use my logic for upvotes, which you clearly didn’t, and maybe you’ll see why it’s downvotes that are removed and not upvotes.

See, if downvotes were active you might have just gainsayed and moved on and we wouldn’t have had this interaction. Neat huh?

That’s a shame. TTeck pretty much built my Homelab.

Oh, I just watched that episode of Serial Experiments Lain.