Lurker > Anteaterking

I think I would lose to the average person who would get into a fight, but have better odds if an average person just gets poofed into an arena with me.

I think with all of the details that have come out since, Will's slap had a lot less to do with "defending" his wife's honor and a lot more to do with his general dissatisfaction with that relationship and needing to look like a big man in front of America.

I voted "not inherently either" but I do think no matter what the context of the picture was, if I put up a photo of a nude person in my office it would be viewed as inappropriate.

Because like...even if it's just a National Geographic whatever...why am I displaying it prominently?

Chrono Trigger is one of the OSTs I don't regret getting the CDs for even if it's "weeby".

Keep it in the Trump Trials general...

This past weekend I didn't shave and I had forgotten how absolutely terrible it gets (especially shaving it off later).

King_Rial posted...

More than likely they believe that they will survive Trump's appeal. The language has been modified to their satisfaction. It's unlikely that the opposition to the bond would have done anything other than offer more delays.

Gotcha, thanks.

Ricemills posted...

Some people made mistake by including the "selling for 1200 and buying it again at 1300" as another calculation

Basically they don't think it's "-900+1200-1300+1600", but as "(-900+1200)+(1200-1300)+(-1300+1600)"

Right, but this person is saying that's a "valid way" to interpret the question.

KajeI posted...

This is one of those questions where the "correct" answer is completely arbitrary based on the person who's giving the question out.

Relative to the amount he bought the cow for initially he made 600.
Relative to the amount he bought the cow for the second time he made 300.
Relative to the amount he must've had to buy the cow back he made 500.

There is no definitive answer because there's no proper baseline established.

I don't really know how the third one is relevant.

Sometimes it feels like people want an outlet for their violent impulses and since child molesters are viewed as acceptably low on the social chain, it's convenient cover for that.

CableZL posted...

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1767207744740757985

I don't understand what this means. Why did she agree to it (and why would she contest the bond?)?

I think it's hyperbolic to compare Oppenheimer to CODA or Green Book in terms of Academy "misses".

ryudo500 posted...

if this is the case I will wait until tuesday or monday to text her then if I dont hear form her

my last response tho didnt give her anything to really say right ? the one rom a page ago. so I shoudlmt mental boom if I dont her form her today or tomrrow

I don't want to give you more anxiety but I'm not exactly understanding what your relationship is right now.

Like my last girlfriend was definitely...overly obsessed with me before we started dating, so we text all the time. It wasn't the case that I'd be like "wow she hasn't responded to my text and it's been four hours" but it would have been weird on a regular day to not receive a text from her. But I've known people in very different situations pre-dating.

But I'm also a big texter. Like I text many of my friends on a daily-ish basis. And if I was home sick, I would be even more likely to out of boredom. So what exactly do you consider your current relationship to be? If I was casually dating someone I met on a dating app, I'd probably be a lot more reserved than someone I already knew for a while.

And I'm not asking this to be like "she's not into you bro", but rather to feel out if this is still a non-committal thing on her part (in which case being clingy can do you problems) or if there's been a noticeable downturn.

ryudo500 posted...

IF IT is over, I would reallly like to know what happened? was I too clingy, too strong, she just lost interest due to x? I wouldn't mind texting her and asking her that question if it is indeed over just to know what I did wrong

Well wait until she says it's over before doing that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I never know how much to trust Seth Abramson.

TC, you should know the situation well enough between the previous topic and now to know that

if this relationship falls apart, it will not be because you didn't text back frequently enough.

I do think that TikTok to me feels different than e.g. Twitter or Facebook, even if all three are aiming for the same end goal (keeping me on their service as much as they can). Obviously part of this is based on the points in my life where they were released, but I generally viewed them as:

Facebook: Keep up with friends and family
Twitter: Follow celebrities/news sources/etc. you like and get bite-sized pieces of information
TikTok: Let the algorithm decide what you should watch until you decide to stop
YouTube: Youtube shorts are a step in the wrong direction imo, in general I don't think of YouTube as something where I sit down and public and just watch five minutes of YouTube here or there.

And so from that perspective, it's clear why in my mind there's a distinction there. Not claiming that's sufficient to legally make a difference between them, but it's why I think "by design" TikTok is worse, even if people have turned their own Twitter/Facebook experiences into equally bad things.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

What do you want him to say? Assuming the method for picking winning lottery numbers is fair and random, then all possible combinations of winning numbers are equally likely to occur. There is no way to improve your odds through which numbers you choose. He won by random chance.

All possible combinations are equally likely to occur, but some pay out less than others (e.g. if 1,2,3,4,6 are the winning numbers each winner is going to get way less than if you win with 14,29,32,40,58)

LeoRavus posted...

If the information was accurate and highly sensitive and he wasn't allowed access to it, why did he have access to it? You'd think something that important would be kept locked up or on an encrypted drive. Almost sounds like a sting operation to catch potential leakers.

You can have access to a SCIF but not inherently have permissions to view the same documents. When people get lax about security (e.g. not locking their screen before walking away), it becomes easier for people with physical access to your desk to get a hold of things that they would normally wouldn't.

Even "inaccurate" polls can be useful as long as they're not literally made up.

E.g. a poll that consistently underrates Dems by 10 points is just as useful as one that's always perfect.

Deutschenlied posted...

I mean, how am I wrong? If Biden ignores this all and does absolutely nothing different, he is still far better than the GOP on domestic issues and not putting tens of millions of Americans at risk of disenfranchisement, suffering, death, etc. The entire healthcare system will go from crappy to collapsed. We'll speed run even faster towards environmental ruin.

You guys need to be prepared for Biden to stay the shitty course of blind support of Israel. In that instance, are you going to make the utilitarian, damage mitigating choice, or are you going to lose the will to live and not give a fuck what happens to ANYONE? What are we saying? We'd rather everyone die than live in an America where our government supports evil foreign nations?

If Biden, in an attempt to get more moderate support, decided to side with the Republicans and help push through anti-trans legislation, would you put yourself on the pyre for the sake of all the other Americans?

hockeybabe89 posted...

How many LGBTQ people are you comfortable sacrificing to teach the Dems a lesson when they run for office in 30 years once the Christofascist regime dies out? Give me a number.

Respectfully, as long as Dems aren't doing anything to prevent the next Republican from just straight up genociding trans people, this is just an easy way for them to excuse Dems caving to Republicans.

I personally think that if "voting uncommited" in a primary makes Biden reconsider his position (which is not inherently one supported by like...what's most electable or anything) it's a net gain. At some level, if Biden is unwilling to drop an unpopular position even if it would make him lose...that's on him more than it's on random voters who feel like they are enabling the genocide of their own people.

I'm pretty sure Israel isn't able to actually fund their war without our aid.

Too many people were like "Okay my gimmick is going to be being aggressively pro-Trump" from 2016-2020 and it kind of killed a lot of that because it was alongside people who actually believed it.

What made WWEProp funny is partially how the "gimmick" was unique and no regular poster would post that way.

The only real value of this is hurting down ballot races.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

Yeah, if you look at measures of land area Africa is bigger than North America by like 2.3 million square miles but it doesn't look that way on a Mercator Projection map.

On the subject of maps, I don't like how South-up orientation maps are often called "upside-down maps" because there's no such thing. It's long held convention to orient maps with North at the top but a South-up map is just as valid a representation of the Earth's surface. We're just not accustomed to visualizing it that way.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2e415a93.jpg

>=( South down

MFBKBass5 posted...

id rather support a local crappy diner than give money to a chain corporation

Who you should support with your money is a different matter than

MFBKBass5 posted...

Quality of the food is always worse

I think generally you're right that there are better local options but I've been to a bunch of crappy diners/mid generic restaurants in my time.

BucketCat posted...

I think some people are denying the singular "they" due to nefarious reasons, but I also think that some are being overly pedantic about grammar.

yes, there are instances in writing where singular "they" is 100% fine and usable. there are other instances when it can become confusing about whether you are referring to "they" as in singular or "they" as in a group.

like writing about three people, one goes by "he/him" the other "they/them" and the other "she/her"

"Patrick is a man, Jen is nonbinary. They are taller than Jill who is a woman, but he is shorter than they are."
who is taller than Jill? Patrick and Jen, or just Jen?
Is Patrick shorter than both Jen and Jill? or just Jen?

obviously this is a fringe hypothetical, but I can see where the pedantic crowd is coming from. They are most likely grammar nerds through and through. However, I do not think that they would make a big fuss over this, and instead would ask for more context than demand "don't use singular they"

the nefarious group, on the other hand? doesn't matter the context to them. they're gonna deny things that don't fit their worldview regardless of whether it is proper grammar.

You can construct similar sentences without singular they that similarly need clarification.

cjsdowg posted...

I win people over with my wonderful since of humor. Like one time I saw this lady liked Psych. And my opening line was.

It's messed up what they did to Pluto ... That almost worked. lol

My Bumble experience (which granted is a few years out of date at this point) was basically just the woman saying "hey" and then leaving me to do whatever opening interesting line anyway.

And someone who is too lazy to do that would also be too lazy to read your pickup line as well.

cjsdowg posted...

You have to wait for the lady to text you one Bumble right ? I don't think anyone would put the first move on me.

I mean they're on Bumble so if they match with you I don't see why they'd be any less likely to make the first move than they would responding to your first message on e.g. Tinder.

People do the same thing with gendered languages (most commonly when the topic of latinx comes up) where they're fine incorporating all sorts of slang, ignore that grammatical gender is generally disconnected from sociological concepts of gender (e.g. the Russian word for "giraffe" is grammatically female but you still call a male giraffe by the same word), and accept all sorts of loan words that defy all rules of declension...

but the second it becomes about trans people, they're like "Sorry, I would respect trans people but I'm just too grammatically minded!"

I had friends who went to a church that wasn't this blatant but was definitely like "Women will try to steal your husband away and they'll give in to sin" type stuff and I was always confused that people would go along with some of that because...even if you were willing to just ignore how sexist is against women, why would you want to think of yourself as "If I see a nipple in a movie I'm going to go into an uncontrollable state of lust".

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

But why is the expectation always on democrats to do everything, and not the actual fascists to stop being fascist?

Why are you spending your energy attacking leftists for criticizing Biden instead of attacking Republicans for not voting for Biden?

Democrats putting in the work to attract their own base is part of what being a political party is. The problem is that some people (Biden included) spend more effort trying to attract 100 people who were going to write in "Ronald Reagan" instead of netting 100 people in "their own base" by being more progressive.

Heineken14 posted...

I mean, unless you are comfortable with Fascist McHitler running the country.....

There's an expression in cybersecurity (and various other sorts of similar things, derived from an IRA quote) which is "We have to succeed every day, they just need to get lucky once".

The reason we need to ask more of the counter-GOP is because instead of getting us in a position where we can stop the fascists or strengthen our systems enough to be able to withstand the next time they get lucky. But instead what we end up with is every two years the Democratic party comes forward and says "You have to take the candidate(s) we give you, because the alternative is fascism".

If every presidential election, you push back fascism by 3 years, fascism eventually wins. We should be pushing the party to push back fascism by 5 years.

Also for everyone saying that the "timing isn't right", a lot of the same posters 6 months ago were saying that Biden shouldn't change/be replaced then as well. And a year ago when the same sentiment was being expressed. It's the same argument that conservatives use after school shootings.

You know how most claims of hypocrisy don't work because ultimately most of them end up being "If you support [thing I don't like], you should also be supporting [thing I do like]!" which is immediately reversible on the person trying to use it?

Every reason for why people should vote for Biden despite X,Y,Z is also a reason why Biden should address X,Y,Z. If Democracy is going to end if Biden doesn't win, why doesn't he do more to win?

Even ignoring the Israel situation for a second (because people will point at different numbers to try to debate what's the most electorally popular position), there are a number of broadly popular policies that we aren't doing because Biden is just personally against it. For example, legalizing marijuana. Enshrining more LGBTQ protections at the federal level.

But even on the Israel situation, Biden is going beyond just "supporting Israel" to bending over backwards for whatever they want, not because it's electorally good, but because he's felt a personal affinity for Israel for most of his career. He's actually further to the right on that issue than people like Reagan.

I lived in Moscow for an entire summer and while I think there are reasons to prefer it over Chicago, New York, LA etc. they're in the same tier enough for Tucker's statement to be eye-roll inducing.

Before they instituted a higher age limit, there was a period of time where there were yearly people drafted into the NBA right out of high school, e.g. Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Lebron.

So I guess a slight reframing of the question, can one NBA rookie and a bunch of schlubs beat a WNBA team? Because that's in some manner the "floor" for best boy's HS team.

I don't actually think Kamala would be inherently worse than Biden policy wise and if he stepped down, it provides the perfect opportunity to "reverse course" on some things that are unpopular in a way that doesn't feel like pandering as much as if Biden himself did it.

myusernameislame posted...

People act like they get to just live in a separate reality from politics. That's not how it works, there will always be people in charge doing things and whether directly or indirectly a lot of the things they do will impact you. So yes, instead of whining about motivations or whatever, just vote for the outcomes you want, because "no outcomes" is not a thing.

I think there are people who are relatively isolated from the impacts of politics (at least at the national level, because local politics can have a big impact and things like global conditions have more impact on the economy than most of the policies that get passed).

That being said, it's only valid if you're willing to be like "I literally don't care about any marginalized group or anyone in worse economic situations than me", so like yeah even if that situation you're kind of an asshole.

No one actually is voting based on the "too old" thing. It's just an easy fallback reason for general voter apathy, partially caused by the Biden administration not doing enough to advertise their accomplishments and partially because people feel as though things are bad/getting worse and you can show them statistics but it doesn't change their perceptions (i.e. people's votes regarding the economy are more based on how they think the economy is going rather than how it's actually going).

PiOverlord posted...

Mahomes has more natural abilities as a QB than Brady, but tbf to Brady, he's never really been that type of QB. There's a reason Brady was a 6th round pick; coaches want a freak of nature they can mold into a QB, but Brady wasn't really the finest clay in that regard.

Brady has high game IQ, though, and he had really good longevity, which people for some reason like to underrate when they compare young people to Brady. Brady's regression was much kinder to the point that he never really was at a point, even at his old age in the mid-40s, where it straight-up looked like it was over. Compare him to Manning, where, despite Manning winning a SB in his final year, looked so far from his prime that his ring that year felt like everyone else won in spite of Manning's poor performances.

Another thing, which comes with age to an extent, is that people wanted to play with Brady. Gronk came out of retirement to play with Brady, so the charisma and the winning attitude made him someone that could keep having elite players in his old age. Won't value that too high as that's pretty subjective, and unfair to compare a young QB to, but it's still something.

Yeah I think that's what people miss in the comparison. Tom Brady basically had 3 HoF careers. Mahomes is fantastic, but we've yet to see what he looks like when age starts picking up.