The alternative is moving operators closer to immediate danger and operators are significantly more important to protect than a repeater drone and a strike drone.

I got the brain inflammation outcome 20 years ago. Brutal. Would not recommend.

In the past, it's been to just prioritize not getting bitten, so use bug spray and consider how you're dressed. If you are going to sleep outdoors maybe consider how well your sleeping situation is going to protect you.

Also, big one is to think about if you're creating good mosquito breeding conditions on your property. If so, change that.

I know years ago, there was interest in reporting/cleaning up suspiciously dead birds too. Not sure what the current direction on that is now.

Technically yes. Practically (depending on the quality of the repeater system) no.

The internet you use for online gaming has your data routed over dozens of "repeaters" which are also multiplexing many different messages from hundreds of connections. These drone repeaters have many fewer hops and far fewer concurrent connections.

Delegates are bound to support in all good conscience the person for whom their primaries results reflect.

This bizzare turn of phrase has been largely been untested in the courts... But if, in good conscience, the delegates believe that the results of the primary were for the candidate who was best poised to defeat Trump (as in, they're not supporting Biden specifically as much as they are against Trump, for example) then they could argue that based on events that have occured since the primaries that they are in good conscience representing those wishes.

So, I dunno. I'm very glad Biden took the high road here, but I am unconvinced that this was truely set in stone. This is the exact justification for having delegates choose the nominee in the first place; that in certain critical conditions they can act in good faith.

The truth is still the truth, even if there is no material difference in the implications.

I agree in principle with what you're saying.

However, a sitting president is not entitled to the nomination. It's happened before where a sitting president is denied a nomination for a second term, and it's been given to someone else in the party instead.

If it had gone that way with Biden though, I think the optics would have been so bad that there would be no hopes of salvaging the election though, so it's still praiseworthy that he dropped.

That's not really responding to their point. Are you saying that there are no project resources that aren't (or couldn't be) encoded as text representation in any conceivable project that is stored in a git repo?

I agree with your general point. I'm just curious if you have some unique project pattern techniques that allow you to draw such a hard line so confidently.

If I was a SpaceX employee, I would not accept sperm in exchange for seeding a mars colony

For transparency, I'm Canadian, but our situation is pretty much the same: Far right candidate projected to win next election, "meh, status quo centrist" in power now, people letting projections deter them from voting, primitive "electoral college" lite making your votes less effective based on where you live, etc etc...

We do trend towards "looking over the fence" politically. If Biden's step-down gamble pays off, it's possible we could get a similar thing to happen here which could be good. So, we're all watching and hoping that we don't end up neighbouring a country with a fascist leader...

I think the availability of polling is a major reason why people don't bother to vote. If they're reasonably sure their person will win, they're less likely to bother. Or, if it looks like it's going to be a blowout and they don't think one vote will matter, same thing.

Voting day should be a federal holiday, there should be a tax incentive to vote like in Australia, and polling reporting should be delayed by 1 month.

Polls are surveys. They answer the question "what do people say they're going to do?"

Extrapolating results strictly from polling comes with a pretty large caveat: it assumes people are going to do what they say they're going to do.

Another large caveat is that there are issues with representation, as the group of people who will actually answer their phone is a pretty serious demographic skew.

Oddsmakers use polling results as a COMPONENT of their determination, but they're free to aggregate against whatever else they see as relevant, things like history. Or to weigh which states polling is most effective. Or how which day of the week affects voter turnout on a per district level. Or how projected road closures could affect transit and therefore turnout rates.

Anyways, I think the entire point of my initial comment was lost:

If you're excited about the polling, awesome... BUT DON'T GET COMPLACENT AND STILL GO VOTE. Why? Because the people who actually get paid to project outcomes think it'll be a Hillary re-run, and if you don't want that, you can NOT get complacent. You can't let your friends get complacent. Be the reason the oddsmakers lose money in November.

*That's what people who's entire profession is establishing likelihood of outcomes think.

Oddsmakers are often wrong, but over the long term, they're more often right, it's the entire basis of how they make money.

Polls are just polls. Oddsmakers literally are putting thier money where their mouth is. If you're confident they're wrong, take the bet. They WANT you to.

Edit: after reading the great responses, I think I'm sorely underestimating the volume of bets and how keeping both sides betting against eachother in this case is the strongest factor in the current odds.

Also incorrectly coded Saskatchewan "Land of the Living Skies" as "Climate/Weather"

Anyone who's lived there knows it's a reference to the density of flying insects.

Just out there rooting for the cardassians

46 to 47 is basically a wash. 46 was basically Joe's Ceiling; he is a known quantity. Harris has head room for no other reason than most people know barely anything about her so there is an opportunity to grow her standing.

I actually wish more people provided their own definitions of words so i don't have to guess

I think the shower thought is centered around IF a ubiquitous bug that required physical access to the machine to resolve occurred simultaneously across all Linux machines.

If you couldn't remotely resolve the issues, regardless of your competence, simply the WALK to each machine and hooking up a KVM to each one would take a long time.

If it depends on how ES6 is received they still have another 6 or 7 years

I don't think I've ever heard it said that a skeptical viewpoint must be rooted in evidence.

I think people are skeptical of pretty much anything that Trump does or says because he's a proven serial liar. That still isn't evidence that any individual claim is false, though.

Is this a domain specific definition, something outside of conversational usage? Or am I just totally out to lunch?

Alternative planting patterns WOULD better mimic post-fire growth. No need to jump to the conclusion that the two competing ideas are do exactly what we do now or abolish a primary industry.