I feel the same way.

just read the article and trump (unless its the word for fart as in the uk) is marked as sensitive.

Incredible that 'conservatards' is in there but not 'libtard'. I thought the right was always being censored!

I don't think I have ever seen 'conservatards' before today

First time I heard that word too. Which proves the point /s

People are reading too much into this.

I commented this here for this precise reason. `Libtard` is definitely a word people on the internet use but the other one ive literally never seen before. Someone went out of their way to add one and not the other. I agree though that, ehem, rightoids are supremely sensitive tho.

> Someone went out of their way to add one and not the other.

And it worked! It has been so much censored that neither of us even knew that word.

That is odd. Hadn’t occurred to me.

libtard and conservatard are both there on when I tested on my Mac 26.2

I think downvoters may not have realized i was being sarcastic with my second sentence.

The author must have bought MAGA edition of the MBP. The AOC edition has 'libtard' in it, surely.

figure everyone knows, but since plenty english second language here — prove used to have a "test if passes" meaning, and proving can fail.

two examples:

proving grounds = testing grounds (people know this isn't proof grounds)

proves the rule = tests the rule (people think this is proof, no, also testing)

Just in time for America's ongoing discovery that "liberal" and "conservative" are in fact quite similar ideologies. New insults are called for. I propose "progtard" and "reactard".

Progcels be seething over reactchads.

IRC is that way ->

In fairness, this discussion is about offensive vocabulary.

Or, frankly, the way in which the rotation between the Democrats and the republicans works and is critical to the overall direction the US is heading and has been heading since the 80s.

Indeed, the current White House occupant is much louder and more annoyingly abrasive with some bizarre one-off impulses vs the usual occupants, but it's now clear that over the last ~30 years, career politicians, corporate vested interests, lobbyists and the administrative state have increasingly subverted the two-party duopoly into pure political theater.

It's a little sad that Trump is such a divisive train-wreck spectacle that many haven't noticed that Clinton, Obama and Biden were achieving many of the same outcomes as Bush/Trump, just more smoothly and with more appealing rationalizations.

The best thing about Trump is that he's such an obvious self-interested kleptocrat and he doesn't even care to hide it (in fact, he seems to enjoy flaunting it). But is it really that much better to be sold out by a more likeable persona who seems like part of our tribe and has the skills to mask the long con more deftly? I guess maybe at least then we won't notice as much or feel as bad about the same outcome?

All that rambling to say what, exactly? What vague "outcomes" have "both sides" been trying to achieve?

"both sides" are not even close to being the same.

“The next president won’t continue this” is what I’ve been hearing since the 90s.

dug around in there briefly and the per-session explorer is the best part imo

This doesnt need yet another study. Instead of narrating the problem we should figure out whats actually stopping it. And people saying the ACA was universal health coverage or even an attempt at it should stop intentionally derailing this discussion.

Cool system.

Please continue developing this I’m sick of all these one-offs that escape the mature good tooling we already have.

I generally like this but I think the diseconomies of scale bit is narrow. Open models are showing us that it’s just the frontier companies in the west which are bloating and ignoring efficiency and that they’re leaving a lot of efficiency on the table.