> There has never been a leftist government in the US. You seem a bit lost.
I'll give you three examples of the dems sliding left.
Biden did make sure all the borders were wide open and american forklifts, operated by americans, have been used to facilitate the mass migration of millions and millions of non-US citizens into the US.
Under the same government there have been politicians passing laws so that there'd be tampons in men's restrooms.
And you now have a mayor in NYC explaining publicly, to americans on US soil, that it's time to "look at the life of the prophet Muhammad" (I encourage everyone to go and buy a quran and go read it to actually learn about the muhammad but this may make want you to switch from democrat to republican).
I understand that people who vote democrats don't want to be called leftists but I don't think anyone disputes that dems have been slanting towards the left more and more.
Democrats having no issues with a politician lecturing them as to how they should look at the life of the prophet of islam makes me think something serious is going on.
>I don't think anyone disputes that dems have been slanting towards the left more and more.
Anyone, except actual leftists. Dem leadership hates Mamdani. The only reason you believe the Dems are left-wing is because corporate media propaganda is highly effective.
Well isn't that the case with a few other things? FSR4 on older cards is one example right now. AMD still won't officially support it. I think they will though. Too much negativity around it. Half the posts on r/AMD are people complaining about it.
Because FSR4 is currently slower on RDNA3 due to lack of support of FP8 in hardware, and switching to FP16 makes it almost as slow as native rendering in a lot of cases.
They're working the problem, but slandering them over it isn't going to make it come out any faster.
> Because FSR4 is currently slower on RDNA3 due to lack of support of FP8 in hardware, and switching to FP16 makes it almost as slow as native rendering in a lot of cases.
It works fine.
> They're working the problem, but slandering them over it isn't going to make it come out any faster.
You have insider info everyone else doesn't? They haven't said any such thing yet last I checked. If that were true, they should have said that.
> That is incorrect, and the FP8 issue is both the officially stated reason and the reason that the community has independently verified.
That is incorrect. It works fine. It could be better, but it works.
> AMD has been rather open about it.
Maybe you're right, but everyone else I've been in contact with (includding r/AMD and r/radeon) and everyone I've watched videos from on this subject say the complete opposite. Google also contradicts you "AMD has not officially released or confirmed plans to bring FSR 4 to older graphics cards. AMD has stated they have 'no updates to share' regarding support for older Radeon." It sounds like you may have imagined that.
That's what I remember most about it: how much it lowered expectations on us. We barely ever worked because most of the time we couldn't. It was always broken (not just slow). This became a part of the culture where management didn't even care what we did. They knew eventually things would get done (late) but we'd also have to wait. That was just part of it.
I agree. I will say the slowness i could kind of understand - just poor network protocol optimization/etc on their part, etc. Not that i excused it, but i at least could understand how you get there - you are always on a fast network and so you just don't notice what it's like when you aren't.
The brokeness was always what got me. I had to believe either they had no unit tests, or 1000's of them were failing and they released it anyway. Because it was so fragile that it would have been impossible to test it and not notice easily broken things.
I agree and I know what you're saying, but I'm pretty curious: how are people using AI with vim? I've seen some scripts for ollama but what are most people doing?
I imagine with vim, from the document you're editing, you'd go:
:ter
to get a terminal. Fire up aider with --watch-files in the terminal. Hop back up to the file and start telling it what to do. Hit L when it's done to see the changes.
That's just a guess but after writing it out I kinda want to try it.
When I use aider it's via its chat interface and then I load the file with vim in another terminal tab to follow along but I think --watch-files with vim would be fun.
Does it count if I share my experience with AI and nvim? I use it to update my configuration, discover new plugins, write custom lua code (I don't know lua) and inquire about motions that would help me in specific workflows. I started learning vim motions last summer and AI really lowered the entry barrier and allowed me to focus on the motions rather than the setup.
Also related to my nvim workflow but not strictly vim related: I use AI to write and update a bash script that handles tmux windows. Again, it lowered the barrier to entry and it made switching to nvim as my primary editor easier.
This. With so much of my work being done with Claude Code via terminal, I’ve used vim and tmux more than I have in the 20 years since I was first introduced.
With all the buzz about orchestrating in the age of CLI agents there doesn't seem to be much talk about vim + tmux with send-keys (a blessing). You can run as many windows and panes doing so many different things across multiple projects.
The way I see it using tmux to orchestrate multiple agents is an intermediate step until we get a UI that can be a product offering. Assuming we get orchestration to the level it has been touted, there is a world where tmux is unnecessary for the user. You would just type something to one panel in which the "overlord" agent is running (the "mayor" if we talking gas town lingo) and that agent will handle all the rest. I doubt jumping between panes is going to stick around as the product offering evolves.
Nearly this, but using ghostty instead of tmux. You don’t get the remote connection aspect of tmux, but for splitting/zooming/preserving windows it is fantastic. The best part is you can configure natural shortcuts rather than using a leader for everything.
AI makes advanced IDE features less relevant (or, more precisely, much easier to ignore or work without.)
I still have PyCharm, especially for working with data which I do a lot it helps quite a bit, but by default I'm back to a very vanilla Vim setup. Others have mentioned tmux which is great and I'd use anyway especially over ssh, but even just terminal tabs for instances of agents are fine frankly.
I personally don't think that's the whole story. They're likely going to act against the cartels to take out cross-border drone capabilities and are preparing for S-A retaliation as well.
A cartel using a SAM against a US civilian aircraft would massively solidify public opinion against them just like 9/11 or the Iran hostage crisis. The US has been trying to extent the "foreign terrorist" label and casus belli to drug activities forever to justify military operations (ex. the "arrest" of Maduro was for drugs, not oil/Cuba/political stuff). That would be a massive self-own on the cartels part. (And if it did happen, just like 9/11, it would be used as justification for anything even remotely immigration or drug related at every level.)
My understanding over the US/MX cartel relations is performing an invasion and “act of war” would solidify asylum status claims by Mexican residents and throw a wrench into the whole immigration scheme every administration plays.
But then again this time seems different, laws aren’t followed or upheld. Human rights are a fleeting staple.
Its mincing words a bit, but an attack targeting drug cartel assets wouldn't necessarily be viewed as a war with Mexico. It could lead to that for sure, and the Mexican government could declare it an act of war, but we did just see the US literally invade a foreign country and arrest their sitting leader without war being declared on either side.
We declared war on drugs and on terror, maybe AIDs and Covid as well? Though you're right, we haven't declared war on another state since WWII despite being in multiple wars over that time.
I assumed when you wrote "war being declared" you meant in Constitutional sense which reserves to Congress the power to declare war.
Not in the metaphorical "war on poverty" sort of way.
FWIW, examples in addition to Maduro are Aguinaldo (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Hussein (Iraq), and Aristide (Haiti).
(Technically speaking, the US didn't recognize Philippine independence so didn't consider Aguinaldo to be its president, but instead a rightful cession from the Kingdom of Spain due to the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish–American War, where the US had made a formal declaration of war.)
(Also, the US says Aristide's departure was voluntary.)
From what I've seen in the news, and also in history books, and also from anecdotes from the family of a previous (American dual national) partner, I don't agree that Americans as a whole see the international border as "a bright line" nor "a defining point of jurisdictional change".
Some Americans may, I don't know how many, but definitely not Americans as a collective.
I tried writing a comment to explain the Chicano perspective, but since I am a non-Chicano American, I was just making things up.
Suffice it to say that the Chicano experience and perspectives on nationalism are different than that of typical Americans. And that Americans cannot understand the political relationships or the border states or the Chicano enclaves without accepting that our perspective is not shared by them, and their worldviews on race, ethnicity, culture, territory, nationalism and legal status has led us to this point in 2026.
Our national motto is "E PLURIBUS UNUM" and our structure is a republic with 50 states. But like the Internet is a network of networks, the United States is a nation of immigrants, where not everyone is playing by the same rules.
> In what world is public opinion not universally against the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
They definitely care about not ratting the cage with the US - they don't harm US federal agents, or take US hostages, and the last incident of Americans being killed in Mexico by cartel-affiliated gunmen in a case of mistaken identity - it was the cartel who handed the perps over and apologised[0]
It is, of course. What they mean, I assume, is that it would reach a tipping point where intervention would be more broadly supported. Virtually everyone is willing to say "that's bad" with regards to something happening somewhere, it is far less agreed upon that the US should intervene in that bad thing. An effective tipping point is probably something on the order of "we feel attacked".
Much of the world was against Saddam Hussein, but it took the wholesale invention of an Iraqi nuclear program to justify and get authorization for deposing him through international military action. Iraq didn't attack us, though in attacking an oil partner they might as well have, but the public certainly didn't feel attacked until someone dreamed up the prospect of Iraq nuking Israel, Europe, and/or us.
In that case, the justification was a prerequisite to Congress authorizing a war without losing elections, and then selling it to the US's allies so we wouldn't have to send quite as many troops and thus lose elections. This administration demonstrably doesn't care about justification, authorization, alliances, or elections. So why bother? If they're going to stage an arbitrary Venezuela-like military operation in Mexico because of "cartels", they wouldn't wait for a civilian mass-death event, or for Congress, or regional allies, or public opinion. They didn't wait for any of that in Venezuela.
TBQH this just felt like a cheap and easy way for them to perpetuate the idea that we're always at war with terrorists. Now they're "narcoterrorists", but they're still "terrorists". And this administration might not like obstacles like authorization and due process, but it loves cheap, easy terrorists.
Regarding the justification given to the US, it was not just WMDs, from the US public's perspective. Large portions of the US population believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11 and the US repeatedly framed things that way.
There were plenty of people that were not against Pablo Escobar as he spent a lot of money back in his home town. Once the violence escalated, like when they took down a civilian flight, even that support waned. So I can see where GP is saying similar that by the time cartels get to the point of shooting down civilian aircraft even those that did support them would consider that the final straw.
I don't mean that many people actively support them (in the US, my understand is in some areas they do have local support in Mexico, but anyway), but rather that this is not the forefront of most peoples minds, nor would people necessarily support any conceivable action against them. Moreover, many would criticize efforts against them as "failed war on drugs" and see it primarily in that lens absent any clear attack on US civilians not involved in the trade.
There's still a difference between the opinions on cartels and the opinion on an invasion and bombing of groups hopefully-related-to-cartels during another years long not-war.
> In what world is public opinion not universally against the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
I think you’re getting tripped up by some specific wording and managing to miss the point the poster was making. The point should be taken seriously even if imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the cartels, there’s a much wider range of belief on how much they warrant government or military intervention and to what degree we should be spending various resources on them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels are criminal organizations which are generally a policing matter that has escalated to specialized policing agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies. The marked escalation of the military into this is a more recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One doesn’t have to be “in favor of the cartel” to ask questions about whether our military should be bombing boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize organizations that historically have been subject to policing operations.
To go back to the parallel… the public wasn’t in favor of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge difference in the level of response the public was in favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring level of response into an active military invasion of multiple countries.
The best part about bombing the boats is that the second strikes on them were war crimes, while the few survivors that were picked up... All ended up repatriated.
If they were all drug runners, why weren't they put on trial? Why was so much effort made to sink all the evidence? Why did an admiral resign, when told to do this?
Everybody involved, starting from the people pulling the trigger, to the people giving the orders should be getting a fair trial and a swift punishment for that little stint of piracy and murder.
But these people all act like there is no such thing as consequences.
What cross-border drone capabilities, drug deliveries? People are talking like the cartels are conducting Ukraine-style drone warfare and blowing up Americans on the regular. Let's stick to a factual baseline here.
It sounds like that's what was being tested requiring the NOTAM. We just don't know if it did or didn't work. It could have failed so badly they decided to just shut it down, or it could have worked so successfully they decided no more testing was needed.
Escalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has also gone poorly. It’s been the casus belli many times, notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked…
The last time there was an attack within the United States’ borders it notably ended with a self-owning combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the systematic erosion of enumerated rights.
Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely different context which has no relevance here. We're not in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting nuclear capabilities for the first time in history.
You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating an existential threat on your own border is a bad move for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not. The current situation has the potential to be much more dangerous.
reply