Lurker > adjl

Unbridled9 posted...

You're clearly convinced any measure is justified so long as it 'helps contain' the outbreak

Not remotely. I've explicitly agreed that welding people into their homes goes too far. We're talking about saving lives, though, and not just the lives of the people that are refusing to play along (more often than not, out of misguided stubbornness more than any genuine objection, given the extent to which resisting vaccination on principle has become a matter of personal identity). That justifies quite a bit, provided the countermeasures don't cost more lives than they save.

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm clearly convinced that, while the vaccines are good and everyone should get them, the lockdowns, mandates, and hysteria have long since passed acceptable levels for this

We agree on the hysteria angle, but I don't think you should be conflating people that scream and assault people for missing masks with measured, pragmatic approaches to ensuring safety. I'm also not sure why you're so opposed to vaccine mandates. Even without making vague references to general workplace safety, many jobs (mostly in health care) already require their workers to stay up to date on vaccines for the safety of their clients, firing them if they refuse. This is nothing new, nor is it in any way unreasonable that those requirements would be extended to other fields when dealing with a disease that presents significant danger to everyone. Why is it that you're drawing the line at something that's already so acceptable?

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

As far as I can tell, nothing about Duckbear's post suggests that it was the lady who didn't think women should work on cars that was employed by the dealership. I could be wrong, since I skimmed it pretty quickly and I'm so used to filling in the gaps in ducky's at-times-questionable wording that I don't even notice myself doing it, but that's why I'm inviting you to point out which part suggests that.

mrduckbear posted...

who then FIRED the CUSTOMER

Yes. That is a phrase that's sometimes used when talking about long-term customers. It's more common in professional contexts (like a lawyer or accountant firing a client, or a doctor firing a patient), so it's a little weird that Ducky's using it here, but it's not wrong. Phrased another way, the owner has banned her from the shop.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

As far as I can tell, nothing about Duckbear's post suggests that it was the lady who didn't think women should work on cars that was employed by the dealership.

"I didn't ask for a female, i would like to talk to a male. My opinion is woman don't belong in the service department, they belong behind the scenes doing the paperwork"

mrduckbear posted...

But when the woman [customer] hears another woman [mechanic] speak she says [quote]

I know Duckbear's wording can be a little weird sometimes, but this one's really not ambiguous at all.

Unbridled9 posted...

This seems utterly insane and dictatorial to me. It's treating people who aren't even sick like they have the bubonic plague and making it so they are confined and restricted. This is exactly how you get people refusing out of defiance to boot.

That's simply the nature of this beast. People can be contagious for up to two weeks before showing any symptoms; if you wait until they're confirmed to be sick to enact preventative measures. there's a very high chance they've already spread it to many other people. So long as there is still significant transmission happening, unvaccinated people are at considerably greater risk of being infectious than vaccinated people, and should be held to the same precautionary measures as were applied to everyone in the pre-vaccine days.

Unbridled9 posted...

I didn't say the suffering was the shot. I meant that the suffering was coming from becoming a social outcast unable to function or live a normal life.

The alternative of getting the shot is always available. Suffering that's that easily avoided doesn't really count as suffering.

Unbridled9 posted...

'It's not punishment. It's just inflicting increasingly negative outcomes upon them for their behavior until they conform to our desired outcome.'

Again, nobody cares about changing their behaviour. It's purely about results: Take the unvaccinated out of the environment, and the environment becomes safer. That's true whether it's achieved by removing them directly or by them ceasing to be unvaccinated.

Unbridled9 posted...

There is a MASSIVE difference between a parent preventing their child, who is sick and likely not feeling well enough in the first place (or at least capable of sensing something is wrong), from seeing a friend for a short amount of time because they are sick and a restaurant calling a cop on a child, who may be entirely healthy not just from COVID but any sickness at all, to remove the child indefinitely because the child, who is five, lacks proof of vaccination.

If cops are being called, it's entirely because the parents are being belligerent and trespassing after being asked to leave, not simply because an unvaccinated child showed up at the door. Children are already routinely prevented from participating in certain activities based on their vaccination status. Expanding that in this particular way is perfectly consistent with that precedent. It's also consistent with keeping a kid at home even though they feel better because they're still contagious. Perhaps head lice would have been a better example, since measles is usually pretty miserable, but meh.

Unbridled9 posted...

Bulls***. I've been sick to the point of needing to take multiple toilet dashes and gotten told I would be punished if I took a sick day. I had a damned nail impale my foot and had to fight to get a stool to sit down. I had to work at a job that required talking to customers actively when I had bronchitis that was about to turn into pneumonia because 'no one else can cover your shift'. Companies don't give a crap about your health. They'll gladly find some way to deny you healthcare if they can if only so they don't have to shoulder the expense. The only reason they care is because the government is threatening to hold a gun to their head and even then they'll ONLY care about COVID. You could walk in with your leg half torn off, a bullet wound to the head, and your own left arm detatched and reanimated and trying to strangle you in a zombastic fury and they'll still demand you get on the cash register or help bring in totes or answer calls or something. So long as it isn't COVID they won't care and they'll only care about COVID because the government is forcing them to do so.

Bulls***.

Yes, many workplaces will cut as many corners as possible when it comes to health and safety, but that doesn't change the fact that there's still ample precedent for firing people who refuse to work safely (as much because they're a liability as anything), as well as for the government to force them to do so. I gave several examples earlier.

Unbridled9 posted...

I dunno. Advocating for the segregation of a group of people based on the assumption of their political and potentially religious beliefs while classifying them as 'unclean' seems pretty far-right.

But I'm not advocating for their segregation based on assumptions of their political/religious beliefs. I'm advocating for their segregation based on the level of public health risk they pose. There's a clear practical basis of aiming to maximize public health and safety. As it happens, that's significantly correlated with certain political beliefs, thanks to everyone politicizing public health like a bunch of idiots, but that's entirely ancillary to my reasoning.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you come in to someone's house soaking wet, they may ask you to get out of those wet clothes and put something on they offer you. If you choose to stay in your wet clothes you have to stand on the deck as they don't want their carpet soaked. You aren't being punished with staying in wet clothes, you're just not allowed to soak their carpets. Just put on the dry clothes and stop being a child.

I like this analogy. Good job.

I asked you a specific question. That link does not provide an answer to my question. By what mechanism does penicillin (or any other antibiotic, really, penicillin's just a very well-known example) rewrite the genome of bacteria to create penicillin-resistant bacteria?

SunWuKung420 posted...

I can believe adjl incorrectly believes that resistance isn't gained through exposure and resisting the effects of that exposure.

Would you care to explain the mechanism by which penicillin rewrites the genome of bacteria to create penicillin-resistant bacteria? Since you seem to understand it so well, I'm sure that would be a valuable educational experience for all of us.

SunWuKung420 posted...

With the amount adjl presumes, assumes and denies, while suggesting excluding a group of people from society, he might just be the right wing Joe rogan.

Admittedly, I don't know how to conclusively determine this, but I'm fairly certain I'm not Joe Rogan.

DragonClaw01 posted...

I could maybe buy a few votes here and there being tampered with, but Biden won some "contested states" with hundred of thousands of votes. It is just too much of a lead to tamper with in an untraceable manner. Plus a Biden win was hardly unexpected given the circumstances Trump was in. If anything, he beat the spread.

I really enjoyed Trump saying "Guys don't vote by mail because I'm going to make it illegal if I can," followed shortly by "WTF Why are all the mail-in votes for Biden? That's so suspicious." That strong of a trend does indeed suggest some sort of outside influence, influence which Trump himself provided in spades.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Just like antibiotic resistant strains didn't come about due to people who didn't take antibiotics, since it happened from over use of antibiotics, vaccine resistant strains didn't come about due to those that didn't get the vaccine. Stop spreading incorrect information.

Resistant strains aren't created by the things they resist. They mutate randomly, then end up with a competitive advantage because the non-resistant strains are selected against. A basic understanding of probability tells us that the more cases exist, the more likely it becomes that one of them ends up randomly evolving resistance. That means we can blame the emergence of resistant strains on those that are keeping case rates high. In Omicron's case, it was then transported by the vaccinated, as they were the only ones travelling, but it remains true that being unvaccinated, refusing to wear a mask, refusing to distance, or otherwise being unwilling to participate in the fight against Covid increases the risk of variants emerging in the first place by increasing overall case rates.

It's also worth noting that, unlike antibiotics, immunity from vaccines provides no greater selective pressure in favour of resistance than immunity from a natural infection. Antibiotics are specific compounds that interfere with the growth of bacteria, which the bacteria would not otherwise be facing if the patient weren't taking them. Vaccines provide mostly the same antibodies as a natural infection, though, so if you're taking the position that vaccination has created a vaccine-resistant virus, you must also hold the position that naturally-acquired herd immunity would have presented the same risk.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Omicron says "you're welcome".

Preliminary data is suggesting that antibodies from a previous Delta infection are roughly 20% as effective at preventing an Omicron infection as they are for preventing another Delta one. It stands to reason that the reverse will prove to be true (that is, Omicron antibodies are only 20% effective against Delta), meaning Omicron isn't likely to help us achieve herd immunity to any variants other than Omicron. The antigens are just too different, which is why the vaccines are having such a hard time with it.

Unbridled9 posted...

What restrictions are you willing to impose in order to get your 'return to normalcy'?

Pretty much what's already happening: bar the unvaxxed from non-essential public spaces, especially those where people aren't wearing masks (e.g. restaurants, since it's awfully hard to eat through them), fire them from workplaces where their refusal to be vaccinated creates an unsafe working environment (which there is ample precedent for, so that's not even a new idea), and put some extra restrictions on their ability to travel.

Unbridled9 posted...

Are you willing to give up everything, making others suffer immensely, if only so that you can return to 'normalcy'?

It's 2-3 shots and a day or two of flu symptoms. "Suffer immensely" is just a teensy bit overdramatic.

Unbridled9 posted...

What are you willing to do to punish the unvaccinated for their choice or are you willing to even give them a choice?

Again, calling it a punishment is looking at it entirely the wrong way. It's not about trying to change their behaviour. It's about mitigating the consequences of their choices, choices which would otherwise be putting many others in danger. If they respond to those mitigation efforts by changing their behaviour, great. If not, at least the rest of us are protected from them.

The focus is not on the unvaccinated. It's on protecting everyone else. The unvaccinated will likely become casualties of those efforts, but that's their choice, so they can just deal with whatever needs to happen.

Unbridled9 posted...

I will never agree with the sort of mindset willing to punish a five year old child for being unvaccinated.

Would you punish a five-year-old with measles by keeping them from seeing their friends? Or would you keep a five-year-old with measles from seeing their friends out of necessity, recognizing that the safety of everyone around them took precedent over making them happy?

Unbridled9 posted...

Or saying people should be fired from their jobs if they lack it.

Again, there's already precedent for that. There are plenty of ways you can be fired for creating an unsafe work environment, some of which are government-mandated. This is just one more.

Unbridled9 posted...

I've seen photos of people being locked away in containment pods so they could meet their families for holidays and people being welded into their own homes in nations like China. I will never support something like that. Ever.

That is indeed extreme.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Sounds like that's only a problem for people who have symptoms.

The number of whom will increase as total infections increase. There's no version of this where there's an increase in case counts that consists entirely of asymptomatic people. If you increase total cases by 10%, you increase symptomatic cases by 10%, you increase hospitalizations by 10%, and you increase deaths by 10% (within reasonable margins of error). I don't know why you're focusing so much on "some of them will be asymptomatic" as though that means some of them won't, but it really doesn't.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

"Hospitals are overwhelmed" could mean the staff is overworked. It could mean resources are deplete. It could mean there there aren't enough beds. It does not mean there's too many asymptomatic people.

In this context, it means hospitals can't keep up with demand. Nobody's suggesting that it means there are too many asymptomatic people.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm saying don't have lockdowns. But if it's hospitalizations that trigger them, then don't blame the people who aren't hospitalized.

If you can figure out a way for any given infected person to choose not to end up being hospitalized, that's a great philosophy. Heck, you'd single-handedly solve the pandemic if you figured that out, and possibly all of medicine.

The problem is you can't. It is correct that people who are not being hospitalized are not overwhelming hospitals (obviously), but whether or not a given case develops into a hospitalization is a complete crap shoot. You can't predict it, nor can you control it (aside from the fringe case of choosing to die at home instead of seeking medical aid, which is such a vanishingly small portion of cases that it can be safely neglected). Therefore, anyone that creates a risk of increasing case numbers also creates the risk of increasing hospitalizations.

Now, the nature of probability means some people are going to cause clusters that don't end up resulting in hospitalizations, which I think is what you're trying to get at. That is, however, nothing more than sheer dumb luck, which is not something anyone should be relying on as a matter of personal philosophy, and certainly not as a matter of public policy. You can't rely on post-facto knowledge of a decision's ultimate consequences to help make the decision. Time only moves in one direction. Instead, you have to analyze the risks to make predictions about what harm can be expected, then act based on those.

Quite simply, more cases=more hospitalizations. With a small enough sample size, you'll encounter instances where that relationship doesn't pan out, but public policy has to be based on the bigger picture.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I hold that lockdowns have a greater detrimental effect on people than hospitals have a beneficial effect to them.

Hospitals are responsible for several metric buttloads of people not being dead. While I don't doubt that suicides, overdoses, and other mental health-related deaths have increased over the course of the pandemic, at least partially driven by lockdowns, I do doubt that they're increased by enough to offset the number of lives saved by keeping case numbers lower (both in terms of deaths and in terms of ensuring hospitals still have the capacity to handle the patients that need treatment). If you want to claim that they have, you're going to need to quantify that.

SunWuKung420 posted...

*Omicron laughs*

Yes, Omicron is indeed an example of Covid evolving vaccine resistance. Thank you for confirming my point.

Unbridled9 posted...

Yes you can. COVID sucks a lot by all accounts, but we're not talking the bubonic plague here. You're not going to erupt in blistering sores that will scare you for life or have your bones get warped or be saddled with some pain that's going to last your entire life. If you catch it it WILL suck and, yes, there is a small chance it can even kill you; but then you can get up and live your life after. Even if someone is unvaccinated it's not at all like every unvaccinated person automatically is a carrier for it. If you go out to watch a movie, have dinner with, and engage in a three-day sex-a-thon with an unvaccinated person you can still walk away from it without having caught it. Heck, if everyone who was unvaccinated DID catch it immediately the whole pandemic would likely be over in a month as people either recovered or died.

It remains dangerous enough that having a significant unvaccinated population going about their lives as normal would result in a very large number of dead people, not all of which would be unvaccinated. The health care system simply can't handle that indefinitely, so if the unvaccinated are to participate in normal life, normal life needs some considerable adaptations to reduce that risk (namely, masks, distancing, gathering limits, and possibly travel restrictions/mandatory quarantines for incoming people). That's not even considering the issue that having unchecked spread like that dramatically increases the risk of another vaccine-resist variant emerging, one which might not be as realatively mild as Omicron next time (though Omicron doesn't actually seem to be mild enough to make up for how much more rapidly it's spreading).

"Normal" can't happen without herd immunity. Any attempts to force it to happen before then are just going to result in a whole lot of people dying unnecessarily. That herd immunity can be achieved in one of two ways: Vaccinate enough people to achieve it, or remove enough uinvaccinated people from the herd to reach the necessary rate.

Unbridled9 posted...

They can't live a normal life unless they get the vaccine.

Neither can anyone else. Not without excluding them, anyway.

Unbridled9 posted...

If you are making it so that they can't live a normal life because they can't do things that other people can, you are trying to force them.

They may feel forced, but that's not the intent behind such measures. Such measures exist to reduce the risks people are facing. Nobody actually cares about the unvaccinated people being unable to do stuff, so framing it in terms of "trying to force them" is just silly.

Unbridled9 posted...

as well as against these, frankly, tyrannical mandates (threatening companies with fines if they have non-vaccinated employees for example).

Are you against health codes requiring kitchen staff to wash their hands before handling the food they serve to people? Are you against OHS regulations requiring factories to include suitable guards on their machinery and train their workers to operate them safely? Are you against background checks for ECE workers?

The world is full of regulations that are applied to companies for the safety of their employees and the public. Mandating vaccines is just another example of that. It just seems scary and tyrannical because it's new and applying to companies that haven't previously faced much by way of safety regulations.

SunWuKung420 posted...

I guess you aren't above spreading hate mongering incorrect rhetoric.

You yourself have proclaimed (inaccurately and disingenuously) that Covid has a 99% survival rate. Presented less disingenuously, that's a 1% mortality rate. That means 1% of the people you infected while you had it (which is almost certainly a non-zero figure, given your refusal to try to prevent its spread) ended up dying. The actual national average is 1.6%, so that's even worse.

Perhaps you don't *like* killing tens of thousands of old people unnecessarily, but you certainly don't seem particularly remorseful about creating that risk. That's not much better.

SunWuKung420 posted...

given that the omicron variant has proven that the vaccine doesn't stop the vaccinated from spreading or getting ill from covid.

It still reduces the risk, it just doesn't do a very good job when presented with a vaccine-resistant variant. This isn't any more surprising than it is that a tetanus shot doesn't prevent you from getting rabies; vaccines can't do much about things they aren't designed to prevent.

Muscles posted...

At what point do we stop trying to force the vaccine on people that don't want it? It seems like a losing battle that's going nowhere

When there's good reason to believe that requiring vaccines no longer makes things safer. That's going to be a matter of the overall viral population evolving to become less dangerous (which Omicron isn't actually an example of, since it's too different from other variants to induce a decent immune response against them), case numbers getting low enough that outbreaks can be easily managed, or achieving herd immunity.

It's not a matter of forcing people to get vaccinated. It's a matter of limiting their ability to hurt others by not being vaccinated. They can choose what they want, but if they make the wrong choice, they need to do it in their own little corner of shame so the rest of us don't have to deal with it.

The Stalk Market is a fickle mistress.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We need a video listing the 12 signs you might be suffering from PotD.

1. You're on PotD

Do we really need 11 more?

As far as I can tell, nothing about Duckbear's post suggests that it was the lady who didn't think women should work on cars that was employed by the dealership. I could be wrong, since I skimmed it pretty quickly and I'm so used to filling in the gaps in ducky's at-times-questionable wording that I don't even notice myself doing it, but that's why I'm inviting you to point out which part suggests that.

The entire post is not part of the post. That's not what "part" means. I'm trying to help you understand why you're interpreting this wrong.

Most of society, anyway. There are still some holdouts that seem to like the idea of tens of thousands of old people dying unnecessarily, for some reason.

I said "part."

Younger people can also give it to older people.

Revelation34 posted...

Tell that to duckbear then.

I'm going to need you to quote me the part that you think says this.

Baardmeester posted...

They have about the same mortality rate.

Covid has killed more Americans every month since September 1st than influenza does in an average year. Even if you could claim that they had the same mortality rate (which you're not exactly citing), it is unambiguously obvious to anyone that's paid even a modicum of attention that Covid is more dangerous than the flu. Suggesting otherwise is nothing more than the desperate fantasy of people so deeply buried in their denial that they understand nothing about the world around them.

darkknight109 posted...

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201218/covid-19-is-far-more-lethal-damaging-than-flu-data-shows#1

COVID-19 is roughly 3-to-4 times deadlier than influenza based on hospitalized patients, and that was based on the 2018/2019 flu season, which was a particularly deadly one.

And that was published over a year ago, before Delta made everything much worse. Basing it on hospitalized patients also distorts the data: influenza's hospitalization rate is quite a bit lower than Covid's (though rather difficult to quantify, given how many cases of the flu go unconfirmed).

Waffles I don't have to make myself>Pancakes>Waffles I have to make myself

It's hard to place french toast in there because I find french toast really variable. The first batch I make is usually amazing, but every one after that is much weaker. I think it's a heat control thing, but I just can't seem to get the hang of replicating the "put the slices in shortly before the pan is fully up to temperature" thing on subsequent slices.

Baardmeester posted...

It is like ignoring that covid is only lethal for 1/200.000 under 50 years of age.

FTFY. You can't compare the rate of a mild, treatable problem to the rate of outright dying. That's not only disingenuous, it's semantically null.

I'm also going to ask for a citation on that 1/200,000.

Hades came out last year and I bought it in late December, so it might not count, but the vast majority of my playtime was this year, so I'd say that. I can't think of any games I played this year that actually came out this year (I've got Dread, but I haven't gotten to it yet).

Revelation34 posted...

Why did they hire that woman in the first place?

Presumably because she's a competent mechanic. I think you're misunderstanding: The sexist prick in this case is the customer, not the employee.

PK_Spam posted...

Changing your oil is like the second or third easiest thing you can learn. What the hell is she gonna do if she breaks down in the middle of the road all by herself with no cell service?

If you break down in the middle of the road, an oil change isn't likely to help you. If oil is the problem, by the time you actually break down because of it, changing it won't solve the problem. Tire changes, boosting, and probably a few other skills, certainly, but changing your own oil is very much a convenience/cost saving measure, not an emergency preparedness one.

Revelation34 posted...

Most people don't carry motor oil around with them.

If you've got a car with a history of burning oil (which starts to become an issue around the 150k km mark, for many cars), you probably should. Regular, frequent oil changes can pre-empt that, but it's still not a bad idea to keep a jug in the car and check the oil every time you gas up to make sure you can top it up if needed.

I'm no mechanic, but if I were, I don't think I'd use my penis to fix cars.

faramir77 posted...

Joe Rogan is an entertaining guy but if you listen to his medical advice you're a total fucking moron.

Unfortunately, that describes rather a lot of people these days.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Because a large percentage of the population are stupid and/or disingenuous.

I know that, and you know that, but I'm hoping some day one of these individuals will actually attempt to stand by their nonsense and pretend to not be stupid, rather than slinking off in shame every single time I ask them and hoping nobody notices.

hungrymike posted...

Isn't there considerable evidence that there a a link between the vax and myocarditis?

There is, at a rate of about 1/100,000, the vast majority of which have been very mild cases that cleared up quickly and without further incident once treated. It's also worth noting that that risk is 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than the risk of developing myocarditis from Covid itself.

It's a side effect, yes, but it's such a rare and relatively inconsequential one that any quantitative risk analysis will lead to the conclusion that it is safer to get vaccinated than not.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think people got covid already and claim to have "antibodies" should be enough to enter Canada?

Hypothetically, if they can obtain proof of antibody production and a negative test, both shortly before their trip (the current Canadian standard for negative tests is 72 hours, that would likely work for both), that would serve roughly the same purpose as a vaccine requirement. In practice, though, implementing the ability to verify that would be a bunch of extra work that would really only serve to let somebody in who probably isn't going to respect any other countermeasures while they're here, so sticking with the vaccine requirement is reasonable (particularly where being vaccinated still provides improved immunity even in those that have had it already).

Not autonomous guns, just replace all the guns with autonomous vehicles. It doesn't sound like the most ergonomic approach, but I'm not here to judge.

Baardmeester posted...

The flu can also be fatal.

Why are people still making this comparison? It's not March 2020 anymore. Everyone knows that Covid is vastly more dangerous than influenza.

Zeus posted...

I think Joe McCarthy said something like that.

That sounds like something you could cite, if it's true.

BEERandWEED posted...

So your stance is critical thinking is irrelevant?

If you lack the necessary background to arrive at any half-sensible conclusions? More or less. If you don't understand a subject, trying to think critically about it isn't going to get you anywhere particularly useful (and may in fact lead to dangerous mistakes, in a context as serious as the public health we all know you're not-so-secretly talking about). Instead, you should first try to expand your knowledge of the subject so you understand it.

Provided he actually did what he's accused of (which seems exceedingly likely), absolutely.

BEERandWEED posted...

What if you're already believing lies?

Then you're not in a very good position to try to figure any of this out.

It's good to ask why, but if the answer is "because they are lying dangerously to people," you can usually just go about your life without worrying too much about it.

Nade Duck posted...

nah, fuck that guy.

That is what he's asking for, yes.

There's a part of me that wants to believe that her parents' names were Bryan and Jocelyn.

Judgmenl posted...

No we don't celebrate toxic aristocracy.

It's not really something that gets "celebrated" in Canada, per se, but it is at least acknowledged. Mostly, it's just when boxing day/week sales start, and some workplaces will give people the day off in addition to Christmas Day.

Wait, do Americans not have Boxing Day?

Veedrock- posted...

Programmers didn't "put it in," it's an algorithm that searches the internet. If s*** like this is out there (thanks Tiktok), Alexa is gonna find it. The reality is it's just a robot, try as they might the programmers can't give it the ability to always discern harmless from harmful, and if something gets through then it's up to the recipient to know better.

And if Amazon can't figure out how to stop Alexa from encouraging kids to do life-threatening things, they need to indicate that limitation clearly by putting a warning label on the devices telling parents not to leave their children unattended around it at any time (which, of course, is literally impossible for a device that's perpetually running, so that would amount to saying that households with kids shouldn't own Alexas). It is not reasonable to expect parents buying the product to predict that their voice-activated TV remote might tell their kid to kill themselves when they aren't looking. Amazon therefore has a responsibility to make them aware of that risk.

Bulbasaur posted...

it never occurred to you to just...change the time?

It's an option, but then you have to change it again when you want to access a different time of day, which just gets kind of tedious. It's one thing with a game like Animal Crossing, where it's meant to be a parallel life of sorts (and the real-time windows for doing stuff tend to be relatively wide, plus there are measures like the Night Owl ordinance that can help adjust it to work better with a schedule), but for a game like Pokemon where real-time day/night cycles are mostly just a gimmick, it's an unnecessary inconvenience.

Generally speaking, day/night systems should cycle relatively quickly and/or have an easily accessible option in-game to manually change the time. Having to save, shut down the game, go into the system settings, and adjust the system clock in there really isn't a reasonable workaround when the problem doesn't even have to exist in the first place. That's just a hassle, even without considering that it's going to affect any other games you're playing that rely on the system clock.

Killing the queen as revenge for something that happened before she was even born? Dude's clearly not right.

It's sometimes a bit of a grey area when the ages are that close, but it sounds like she was very much the one pushing for a relationship, including getting him drunk, so this sounds pretty fair.

teddy241 posted...

shes pretty. please dont lock her up. let her bless this world with her beauty

Well that doesn't sound creepy or desperate at all.