vaguerant

The problems are much deeper than Victorian preference deals. As noted in the BPPR Fusion review (separate post to the preference deal fiasco), Fusion absorbed two additional parties this election season: the centrist Australian Progressives and right-wing Democracy First.

This is not a Victoria issue, this is the party expanding by absorbing other parties which don't stand for the ideals of the existing sub-parties. If the SA candidates are completely unaware of what Fusion is doing and what parties are actually in the party, that might be even worse than them pragmatically accepting it.

One thing you can assume about the candidates though, at least until they quit the party or at least indicate otherwise, is that they are willing to be associated with that minor party. So the best case scenario is a really good candidate who is slumming it with a party whose leadership is both absorbing and doing external deals with parties that are fundamentally opposed to their own stated principles. And then the worst case scenario is a candidate who is actively opposed to the party's goals, camouflaging themselves in ideals they don't believe in.

To me, being part of the Fusion party right now--given the state of its leadership and decision-making--is a red flag even on a candidate who otherwise seems good.

Same, Pirate Party used to get top preferences from me, but then Fusion was sort of just a micro-party Greens, which is fine but not really adding to the landscape. It's bizarre to see what they've become as of 2025. I don't know where this sudden rightward lurch came from.

I already knew about massive Pokémon, they were famously included in Sword/Shield.

Except for that one transphobic episode that Graham Linehan has ruined his whole life over instead of going "Yeah, I'm sorry, that was a bit insensitive."

Is it not obvious that this is the first half of a sentence and has been selectively edited to mislead?

I don't have video of the Montana rally, but Sanders has talked about this issue repeatedly at the Fight Oligarchy rallies, and here is what he said in LA:

“Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, but it does not have a right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people… to kill 50,000 people, injure over 100,000 and destroy the entire infrastructure.”

“And as bad as that is, Trump wants to expel the 2.2 million people in Gaza in order to create a playground for his billionaire friends,” Sanders added, referring to Trump’s proposal to “take ownership” of the Gaza strip. “That is beyond insane, and we will never, never let that happen.”

Certainly, there are many who disagree with this half of the sentence, and that's fine, but it should at least be presented with context.

I can't see a way for this to be anything but a Producers situation. Calling it literally anything but Fyre Festival 2 would increase the odds of success, if the event succeeding was ever the plan.

Surely this means Lemmy has finally reached critical mass and we're slashdotting other sites now. /s

Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).

How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn't think they needed to go in the article? You'd basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn't there, but how many people that aren't getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?

There's absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it's also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.

In 1999, Craig became sharply critical of U.S. President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Craig told Tim Russert: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy – a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."

Mate, wtf is an old carburator?