Lurker > _AdjI_

TheWorstPoster posted...

I never paid full price for it

I got it for free on Wii U as a bonus for The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD

It came as a bonus with WWHD? I know it was one of the bonus options available for Mario Kart 8 (I already had it at that point and got WWHD instead), but I didn't know WWHD had a promotion attached to it as well.

Seems about in line with that clip of Bugs Bunny sawing Florida off of the rest of the country. A pretty old joke, and not one that should really be surprising or offending anyone at this point.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I can't imagine living near any of the major train crossings. Such a shit show. Used to have to drive by them to work, huge pain in the ass.

I lived near the corner of Central and William. The track coming out of the rail yard just east of Adelaide was less than a block away from me. I couldn't tell you how many times I got stopped for 10+ minutes by a train switching tracks, either right after leaving home or when I was almost there. I especially love that they'd do that during rush hour so every major north-south street became backed up by 3-4 blocks.

LinkPizza posted...

My city has a railroad that cuts through the middle of town to make a north and south side. And it kind of sucks when you have to cross it often. There are a few places where the road goes under it, and the highway goes above. But it still sucks...

London (Ontario) has two such tracks in the middle of the city, and very few over/underpasses, plus a rail yard with multi-kilometer trains that frequently end up sticking right into the downtown area while they change tracks (with no regard for high-traffic periods, so huge trains during rush hour are a common sight). As I understand, there's another underpass planned for one of the major streets next year-ish, but I didn't stick around to see it come to fruition.

It's alright. It's very much a means to an end: I don't get any particular pleasure out of driving itself, but I like going places and doing stuff, which driving often helps with. I prefer biking when feasible, but that depends on weather, distance, available routes (even if it's a reasonable distance, I'm not going to bike it if the only route is a major road that's not bike-friendly), and cargo/passengers. If public transit were a viable alternative, I'd use it more, but very often it's a choice between a 15-minute drive or a 3-hour bus trip, thanks to how poorly my city's transit system has been designed.

Blightzkrieg posted...

No.

My drive to work is fine because it's mostly a straight line without a lot of interaction required. But generally I find it stress inducing.

I found that was most of London driving. Get on a major road, drive in a straight line for a while, get stopped by a train for half an hour because the city apparently hasn't discovered bridges, but otherwise just try not to get run over by insane wannabe hillbillies and/or suburban soccer moms in oversized trucks.

That was a really nice touch.

captpackrat posted...

I think this is the key here. You can't claim self-defense if you can walk back to your car to get your gun.

Pretty much. If it had been "guy begs for money, gets too aggressive, dude pulls a gun and shoots him," I could believe that he genuinely felt threatened (I could also believe that he didn't and just claimed he did to avoid legal ramifications). If he was able to leave to go to his car and come back, though, he very obviously could have escaped from the situation without shooting the guy, so I don't think he can justify self-defense.

streamofthesky posted...

They were also attempting to pin her murder on her current BF that thought they were under home invasion and attempted to defend them w/ his gun, iirc.
Felony murder, where you don't even have to be the one that killed the victim, merely the one who "initiated" a crime leading to someone getting killed.

Remember, if armed strangers in civilian clothing break into your home in the middle of the night, you shouldn't do anything to protect or defend yourself or escape from them because they might secretly be police officers that have done nothing to identify themselves and are legitimately trying to arrest you and totally won't hurt you if you're fully compliant with everything they say.

This whole thing is so absurd. That entire chain of command belongs in jail.

Fam_Fam posted...

say she was.

how does that change anything?

Obviously, that means the cops had an obligation to execute her on sight, excusing them from any sort of responsibility to follow due process.

dragon504 posted...

Gonna echo this, unless you built it recently. AMD has new cpus releasing this year and Nvidia just announced their new line of gpus today. AMD is also supposed to release new gpus this year, so later this year and early next year looking to be a good time to build a new pc.

Eh, I'm in no rush. The CPU in question is an i5 2500K still running at stock speeds (with the stock HSF), and I haven't felt the need to upgrade that yet. One of these days, I might upgrade the cooler and try overclocking it to get some more oomph out of it, but I'm fine for now. Presumably, my R9 280X will start showing its age when the next console generation comes around, so maybe I'll upgrade accordingly once there have been a couple rounds of new cards at that tier to let me get one relatively cheaply, but again, no rush. Most of what I'm playing isn't exactly demanding.

zebatov posted...

Then I guess youve never had it.

Speaking as a native Nova Scotian who's had lobster in NS, PEI, and Maine, I can tell you there's not THAT much of a difference. Certainly not enough to say that any of them is the only way to have it. As with any seafood, you see a loss in quality the further away you get from the ocean (I just came back from spending two years in Ontario and I rather miss good fish), but NS is far from being the only place in the world where you can get fresh lobster.

There are usually guidelines for anything that does actually need to be kept, like financial records. If you're wondering about a given type of document, look for such guidelines from any organization that might require them at some point (e.g. the IRS for financial stuff). If it's a matter of sentiment, you're really the only person that can decide that, though you should make an effort to be cognizant about how much space you have available in which to do so and what effects such storage will have on the people around you.

Alright, thanks all. I'll just go for the Corsair stuff, then, since it's readily available.

GanonsSpirit posted...

I've got some thermal paste for you ;)

Sweet, just leave it on the doorstep and I'll pick it up later.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Often, yes. In most elections, candidates almost always win their home states, and it's why it kind of becomes a point of mockery when they don't.

"If the people who know him best won't even vote for him, why should anyone else?"

That kind of falls apart when the person in question hasn't lived in the state in question for several decades, though. One's "home state" is typically the state where one has spent most of one's career, since they are indeed in a better position to know the person and what to expect from their politics.

Yep, fan's spinning. I'm half tempted to treat this as an opportunity to upgrade to something other than the stock Intel fan anyway, but I'm also kind of broke because I just moved and don't get a proper paycheque for another 3 weeks, so it's probably not the best time for unnecessary upgrades.

I haven't visually confirmed it, which I suppose I should do, but Hardware Monitor was saying it was consistently hovering around 2000 RPM. Unless the sensor is busted (which I have no immediate reason to suspect, other than it being ~9 years old), I think it should be good. The computer was working fine before the move, and hadn't been knocked far enough out of place to suspect impact damage (it was at a bit of an angle), so I'm not really suspecting fan failure. I will check that, though.

Apparently my desktop's CPU fan got dislodged in the process of moving (bumpy truck), and even after reattaching it, my CPU's still consistently running at 80+C without load and getting throttled to the point of significantly slowing down regular use, so I'm guessing new thermal paste is in order (the old stuff looked like it was messed up by the fan coming loose). Any suggestions for brands to seek out/avoid? The local Best Buy has a Corsair one in stock that I'm leaning toward for the convenience factor, but I'm open to other ideas.

Don't try to steal the pick-a-nick basket when the ranger's nearby.

SunWuKung420 posted...

But this doesn't apply to frozen fast foods, warmed and served to the masses.

Except that's not what you said. You said:
SunWuKung420 posted...

Only fresh foods are nutritious.

You're not going to be able to backtrack to a less absurdly, indefensibly extreme position without everyone noticing, so you might as well explicitly admit that that's what you're doing to minimize how silly you look.

Wanded posted...

i want 4 more years from the party not burning down cities and calling for violence on the other side over political differences.

Are you really generalizing the actions of a minority of protesters to every single person in the country that shares their approximate political affiliation?

Zeus posted...

Porn stars and strippers sure (well, depends on the venue for strippers), but camgirls and online "nude models" are about as legit as Youtubers and streamers. Hookers I guess it depends on the venue as well. If they're on a street corner, it's as much legit work as a drug dealer. If there's a brothel -- ie, a dedicated place of business or an escort service involved -- it's more legit.

So it's only legit if it aligns with the way commerce was conducted last century, and not with anything reliant on more modern technology?

Frankly, any social studies course that doesn't examine controversial contemporary works of art really isn't doing its job. Students are supposed to be studying society, and controversial current events are a part of that society. If the teacher's presenting this cartoon and saying "this cartoon summarizes how all police are evil," then that's poor teaching, but assigning students the cartoon to analyze is exactly what a good teacher should be doing.

Zeus posted...

Probably worth putting together a cartoon comparing the brainwashing this teacher was attempting to do to the brainwashing occurring in China, Cuba, and countless other nations.

https://havanatimes.org/opinion/how-indoctrination-plays-out-in-cuba/

About the fact we really need to screen our teachers better if this is the shit they're doing? Granted, part of the problem is that nearly half of all teachers are from the bottom third of their graduating class. Should we really be surprised when terrible students become terrible teachers?

You can tell when Zeus is properly triggered because he starts rambling about even more irrelevant, incoherent nonsense than usual. It's rather funny.

It does kind of sound like she ruined things for a lot of other models on the site, but frankly, even charging $50 for a single photo is taking advantage of people with poor impulse control, let alone $200. Album? Sure. Video? Potentially. But a single photo? That's just ridiculous even without considering how much the proliferation of free porn has devalued it. Capping single photos at $50 is still absurdly high, such that I don't think it was unreasonable to reduce the cap from being even more ridiculous. At that point, you're exploiting mental illness more so than anything else.

Zeus posted...

I don't support them and I don't really see it as legit work,

Legalities aside, how would it not be legit work?

SunWuKung420 posted...

Frozen and (over)processed foods are notorious for being vastly under nourishing compared to fresh versions.

"Less nutritious" is not "not nutritious." That, and unless you're getting into heavily processed stuff, "vastly" is a hilarious overstatement of the difference. Fresh stuff's generally ideal, but you're not going to suffer for eating frozen blueberries instead of fresh ones.

Fam_Fam posted...

why pick one?

Because somebody doesn't understand that there are more options than letting the police deal with every possible problem and the entire country descending into a lawless wasteland.

Pancakes are great. More often than not, the way I dress them up amounts to having dessert for breakfast (syrup, fruit, chocolate, custard, all of the above...), but I'm okay with that.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Only fresh foods are nutritious.

That's not remotely true.

The people who wanted it to get to this point where reform is needed generally like the idea of it not being reformed, and unfortunately, they tend to be the ones with the power to enact such reform. As such, they're resisting the idea in hopes that the political pressure will die off before their hand is forced. Toss in that nobody's really sure exactly how to go about such reform, given that the current paradigm is so entrenched in American culture as to be almost inextricable, and it's slow going.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I work out every day and I have no f***ing clue how people eat less than 2000 calories a day.

Usually by not working out every day. Between having less active calorie consumption and the reduction in BMR that accompanies a more sedentary lifestyle, being less active generally reduces energy demands by quite a bit. Size (both height and weight) also plays a substantial role in daily energy needs.

Just nix the travel plans and make day trips to nearby parks or trails or the like. Anything up to a 2-hour drive one-way is pretty fair game for a day trip (potentially a bit further if you're open to camping wherever you go), and I'm sure you could have a reasonable time that way.

A lot of candy making (literally) boils down to boiling sugar until it reaches a certain temperature, corresponding to how much water is left in it and the physical properties that entails. Once you pass ~220F, you've boiled off enough water that you've got a supersaturated solution, and it just keeps getting more saturated until you completely run out of water around 340-350 (which is also when you get caramelization happening, then eventually burning). Generally speaking, artificial sweeteners don't display the same physical properties as sugar and/or are used in such tiny quantities (aspartame, for example, is ~200 times sweeter than an equal weight of sugar) that their physical properties aren't relevant, so you have to modify the process considerably to get a comparable product without using sugar itself, and that can get really complicated/expensive depending on what you're trying to do.

That said, jujubes are basically just sweetened gelatin, and licorice is similarly made via other methods then sugar is added for sweetness, rather than relying on the properties of boiled sugar. Sugar-free variants of those are definitely out there, and aren't all that difficult to make. Heck, if you really wanted to, you could probably make some at home.

keyblader1985 posted...

People there are actually defending it..

To play devil's advocate, it is actually kind of understandable that they would. People like to be able to think that the police are competent not corrupt and that they're well protected. This kind of footage that unambiguously shows them to be incompetent bullies challenges that belief, and it's scary and difficult to accept that said belief might be wrong. When vague defenses like "he was probably being violent before the video started" can give them a way to maintain their illusion without actually requiring them to put effort into doing so (effort that would likely bring it crashing down around them, which is what they're really scared of), it's understandable that they'd take such an easy, comfortable route over accepting such an uncomfortable truth.

It's wrong, obviously, but somewhat understandable. Really, most conservatism boils down to "it's difficult and scary to think that what I've accepted might be wrong and that I might need to change, so I'm going to refuse to entertain the possibility," which is why beating them over the head with the obvious benefits of more progressive beliefs never seems to go anywhere.

My last lobster dinner would have been in late September 2016. I was on a road trip with friends, and we all went to a full lobster supper (AYCE mussels, seafood chowder, the lobster, AYCE pie) in PEI. It was a good time. I've probably had lobster meat in other contexts since then, but I don't remember specifically when, and that was definitely my last "big red bug on my plate that I get to crack open" experience.

zebatov posted...

Two years ago with a Nova Scotian. Only place to get lobster.

PEI's good, too. Most of the Maritimes, really (at least the coastal parts of NB). Even elsewhere, though, the fact that lobster is typically shipped and stored live means it suffers less for traveling than most seafood does, so you can get good stuff if the chef knows what they're doing. The local standards just tend to be lower elsewhere in the world, so people tend not to care as much about making it good.

OhhhJa posted...

I don't trust our government to funnel that money in meaningful ways to the general public

The most obvious way to do so would be to redistribute the tax burden so more of it is placed on people who really aren't going to suffer for it (the practical difference between making 500 million in a year and making 100 million is negligible, and an 80% tax would be far more extreme than would ever be reasonable to suggest). Even without going so far as to institute a UBI/minimum income system (which would likely require more tax revenue, even though reallocating money from the existing welfare budget and streamlining it would cover a sizable chunk without needing anything else) or any other major expansion of government services and just maintaining the same tax revenue goals as are currently held, that'd put a sizable chunk of money back into the pockets of the middle class.

In practice, I can't imagine new taxes would ever be introduced while just maintaining total tax revenue, especially given the current situation of Covid having racked up some major deficits. Odds are, they'll try to increase tax revenue with it, and a solid chunk of that will go toward giving government employees (mostly higher-ups) raises. But even that's better than having all of it concentrated in such a small number of people, as much as it's flagrantly corrupt.

I just watch youtube in Firefox on my phone, which has uBlock installed.

Solid Sonic posted...

I avoid Early Access games as much as I possibly can.

I very much look at it on a case-by-case basis. Most EA games are unfinished trash and can be safely ignored, but there are plenty that release as worthwhile games that are just going to keep getting more content. Factorio was one example of that, where it was already a very solid game by the time it was released on Steam in 2016 (they'd released it through their website first), and it's continued to receive content updates ever since. They also maintained a very thorough weekly development blog that gave the whole process a delightful amount of transparency, rather than just a vague roadmap that they were hoping to be able to follow.

Basically, provided the game is either worth purchasing in its unfinished state or there's a solid track record of transparency and continuing to update at a reasonable pace (preferably both), I don't see a problem with EA. That often doesn't happen, but you can find some real gems if you're willing to take that chance.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

don't say someone doesn't need so much, while having things you don't need.

There's "don't need" in the sense of "I could live without this," and then there's "don't need" in the sense of "you would literally need to attain immortality to ever have a chance of spending anywhere close to all of this." There's a lot of grey area around the concept of "you don't need this much," yes, and I'm perfectly in favour of erring on the side of luxury in trying to draw a more concrete line (again, plenty of rich people have worked hard enough for their money to deserve luxury and comfort, and that's not a bad thing), but that grey area doesn't include billionaires, and very clearly doesn't include multibillionaires.

If it helps, Factorio recently left Early Access. That's meant very little for actual major changes to the game, since it's been pretty much finalized since the first experimental 0.18 build went live back in January and everything since then has been bugfixes and smaller tweaks, but the game has officially launched as of August 14th.

Depends mostly how spacious the lot is and/or if the spot next to my desired one if open. My car's quite a bit longer than most, so squishier lots can involve some fiddly maneuvering to drive into/back out of a spot, while backing in is pretty much the same procedure regardless of conditions. In other cases, I'll just pull in because it always feels faster and like less work, even though backing out is generally slow enough to negate that and that's really a rather silly thing to feel.

Of course, if I can pull through to the next spot so I never have to back up at all, I'll do that unless I need to ensure access to my trunk. Best of both worlds.

It's a selfish thought, but it's usually achieved by doing things that make people value you, which generally isn't going to be so selfish (though you can do it for selfish reasons).

Krazy_Kirby posted...

people b****ing about someone having "too much" money, while having their own luxury items....

_AdjI_ posted...

Nobody's suggesting that Bezos doesn't deserve to make a lot of money. He's provided a service that has proven to be very successful and profitable, and as a result, he absolutely deserves to live out the rest of his life in complete luxury, never wanting for anything or needing to work another day in his life to sustain that.

He does not, however, deserve to be able to live out 10,000 such lives.

Wheeeeee...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

bet there are tons of people who think you have "too much". does that mean they get to take money from you?

I mean, that is basically what progressive taxation is. Those who can spare it are taxed to provide for the needs of those who can't. That a disproportionate amount of that tax burden falls on the middle class is a sizable part of the problem here. The middle class makes enough to be considered able to spare a higher tax burden, but doesn't make enough to afford high-end accountants to finagle their way out of paying taxes according to what they're able (to say nothing of the fact that things like offshore tax havens simply aren't offered to lower net worth clients). When there are middle class individuals who pay more taxes in a year than a corporation that made literally a million times more than they did, that's a failure of how the system is supposed to work.

So yes, people should be expected to give up some degree of luxury to support the needs of their community, including those who are struggling to support themselves. That should be expected of people of all classes, though.

Less often than I should. I go through periods of being really good about doing it daily, but then I'll fall off the wagon and skip it because I'm feeling lazy a few nights in a row and the habit goes away. Having thought about it now, I'm committing myself to doing it tonight. It's been a few days now, so not too catastrophic, but I should keep it up better.

blu posted...

This might also mean youve developed an avocado and banana allergy.

Also strawberry and kiwi. They're all related allergens.

Jen0125 posted...

Viral transmission isn't specifically excluded on our policies so it would depend on the other facts of the claim. They've pretty much told us that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

That's going to be fun to deal with. The joys of litigation.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Many basic policies here removed "pandemics and epidemics" earlier this year like one or two months before official measures started.

Was that removed from policies in circulation, or just from new policies?

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't understand the question these parents are asking. Unless they don't mean health insurance, but if they are asking if their health insurance covers them getting sick wtf.

Basically, "can my neighbours sue me if my kids infect their kids with Covid when they all come over to play." It's not so much health insurance coverage as it is the potential for litigation to recover damages stemming from health issues.

If it helps, compare it to letting your kids bring a bunch of friends over when your house is infested with toxic mold, and what happens when one of them develops breathing problems because of it. My common sense interpretation would be to hold you liable for failing to disclose that risk and/or do your due diligence to prevent it from harming them. In the case of covid, however, everyone kind of already knows that infection is a risk whenever people gather, so there's less of a duty to disclose (unless you're knowingly positive and still invite them over, in which case that might actually constitute criminal action), so it's less clear.

Zeus posted...

Don't make topics this terrible.

Something tells me somebody's upset about his pizza being late because he gave poor instructions for finding his apartment.

OhhhJa posted...

Don't apartments pretty much always have tons of signs telling you exactly where to go.

Very much no.

Far-Queue posted...

Completely agree. My son is now 6 and I've thought a lot about this, questioning our decision, and I'm now firmly opposed to the practice. I hear people say keeping the foreskin can lead to hygiene issues or infection later in life and to that argument I say "Would you cut off your hand to save it from some unknown future hypothetical scenario?" Why lop off the foreskin on what amounts to a "What if?" argument?

Pretty much. I especially like the "uncircumcised men have a 1-2% higher chance of penile cancer!" statistic from people who don't realize that that's pretty much purely because they have 1-2% more penile tissue. Take that approach to justifying it, and you open the gates to removing a whole bunch of body parts that aren't truly necessary but have some chance of becoming diseased later in life, which is just an ethical nightmare.

Is it generally covered on their policies? I feel like it could go either way. On one hand, there really aren't any other diseases out there that are both as infectious and as dangerous as Covid is, so there's little reason for an insurance policy to consider such a possibility and include specific clauses to cover it. On the other hand, my tenant insurance policy makes explicit mention of terrorism and nuclear incidents (neither of which are exactly measurable risks in my area), so I wouldn't be at all surprised if their policies covered such previously-negligible possibilities.

Far-Queue posted...

Before my son was born my wife and I discussed this. I was all for circumcising our son. I've had it done. I have no recollection of it in regards to pain or what have you.

My wife showed me a video of the procedure. It's awful. They strap this screaming baby down - the baby is awake through the procedure - and it just looks harrowing. Maybe they numb the area or whatever before cutting, but watching the procedure put me off circumcision for good. No way in hell I could willingly subject my child to that.

Honestly, even if it were completely painless and risk-free, I still wouldn't be behind it. You're performing a purely cosmetic surgery on somebody who can't consent to it. That people are willing to question piercing newborns' ears (similarly cosmetic, but completely reversible with no effort if the person decides to do so later in life) but have no qualms about circumcision is a positively ridiculous double standard.

Zeus posted...

Considering that almost all of the wealth is stock IN HIS OWN COMPANY, once again it's not particularly meaningful.

Why do you think this is anything more than a technicality? Do you actually believe Bezos isn't orders of magnitude richer than any human will ever have any need to be even if you only count his liquid assets? That his net worth is not in any way an indicator of the kind of power he holds?

No, he doesn't literally have 200 billion dollar bills sitting in a vault somewhere. Nobody actually believes that, as desperately as you seem to enjoy humping that particular strawman. That does not in any way mean that a net worth of $200,000,000,000 is not significant or meaningful, and your insistence on suggesting such nonsense just makes you look like a desperate fanboy hoping that Bezos-senpai will notice you if you spend enough time defending him against people criticising the obscene degree to which he has hoarded wealth. It's terribly silly and you should stop it immediately.

SirPikachu posted...

Cool. Amazon provides amazing and cheap service and people love using it. He made a damn good product that makes him a lot of money, it's his money to use. Stop advocating for stealing people's money just because they're good at making it.

Nobody's suggesting that Bezos doesn't deserve to make a lot of money. He's provided a service that has proven to be very successful and profitable, and as a result, he absolutely deserves to live out the rest of his life in complete luxury, never wanting for anything or needing to work another day in his life to sustain that.

He does not, however, deserve to be able to live out 10,000 such lives. Nobody deserves that, nor will anybody ever be able to deserve that because nobody will ever be able to live 10,000 lives. That is a ridiculous, meaningless amount of wealth, and there is absolutely no value in a system that not only permits such hoarding, but actively encourages it. I'm not about to suggest trying to claw back the money he's already made, since that would just be messy and convoluted, but the system that has permitted him and his fellow multibillionaires to become so meaninglessly wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country/world is broken and needs to be fixed to prevent the problem from continuing and repeating itself.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Those claiming that blacks are suppressed and have no civil rights are the ones trapped in the 1960's.

Who's claiming this?