Lurker > adjl

"My state's craft brewing industry could beat up your state's craft brewing industry!"
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

because something might happen isn't a good reason.

Sure it is. Don't be ridiculous.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The only one I've ever gotten rid of was my GC, which I sold to a friend for a sandwich. I can't say I really miss it, since my Wii plays all of the games just fine. All I'm missing out on is the gameboy player (playing Kirby's Tilt n' Tumble on that was an experience, let me tell you) and the broadband adapter (which ended up being pretty useless), neither of which are really a big deal to me.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Questionmarktarius posted...

And this is exactly why socialist states become authoritarian rather quickly.

You do need to have a certain degree of authoritarianism to effectively control the flow of money, yes. The challenge is to do so in a manner that doesn't hurt anyone, which is not actually impossible.

Questionmarktarius posted...

In the "wealth inequality" sense, that's not really a bad thing, no. In the "social programs" sense, it could be disastrous, as seen with France.

I would think that such a cap would be imposed in addition to taxes, rather than in place of them. Ideally, a cap like this wouldn't actually result that much wealth being redistributed by the government since, as you say, people would avoid working harder than was necessary to almost meet the cap. The wealth would instead get more naturally redistributed by having more players in a given industry to meet the global demand, in which case the same amount of money will still be changing hands (and therefore being taxed). It's just not being concentrated in one pair of hands.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That money would never be deposited.

So don't give people the choice. If all money has to go through a central tracking system in order to change hands, it'd become virtually impossible to hide income (especially if cash disappears, though that carries with it plenty of other issues). Certainly, one could avoid ever reaching the cap by just spending the money instead of depositing it, but that's still preferable because spending money still redistributes it (just to people the earner chooses instead of the government) and avoids extreme concentration of wealth.

Of course, having any number of people in charge of that tracking and redistribution opens it up to corruption and exploitation, so the ideal approach would be to have robots take care of everything. Humans can't be trusted with it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

If you were allowed to work any number of hours in a week, but you'd only be paid up to 48, would you ever work 49 hours?

Probably not. Why would anyone want me to, though?

The idea is not to let a handful of companies become economic juggernauts and finance the rest of the world with their excess. It's to prevent any single entity from getting this obscenely large. In a world where no individual could own more than $50 million, Jeff Bezos would never have amassed $150 billion. Amazon would never have become as incredibly massive as it is today. Instead, the online shopping market would be left open to other companies who might someday stand a chance of competing with Amazon, rather than having to wait for Amazon to become complacent in their success and screw up. The same amount of business would be conducted overall, but it'd be conducted by a dozen or so different companies (presumably resulting in a secondary market of comparison services that would search multiple sites for desired products).

The whole "why would anyone work harder if they don't get paid for it?" argument has merit, but only when the cap is so low as to be reasonably attainable without working hard. Nobody is going to be able to amass $50 million without putting some effort into it, and having $50 million to your name is going to be beneficial enough that people will still want to work for it even if they can't be billionaires. They just aren't going to work harder than is needed to become fabulously rich, which I don't think is really a bad thing.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Driving a car on the road is a privilege not a right.

That said, it's a whole lot more necessary in a lot of places than it ought to be, and public transit options should be expanded and improved to help people function without a car.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

it's basic human decency

Not being human, dogs aren't generally expected to have human decency, no matter how basic.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

This topic makes me weep for humanity.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

Not the impression I was getting.

Is anyone saying that it's morally wrong to travel no faster than the posted speed limit? Morality can only be called legalistic if you don't consider the act's morality beyond the laws that govern it. To return to the Nazi Germany example, you can say that following the law would be immoral because following the law results in the death of many (morally) innocent people. Ergo, deferring to "it's the law therefore it's right" is actually morally wrong.

Is heeding the speed limit immoral? Well, let's look at the pros and cons:

Pros:
-Reduced risk of serious accidents (provided everyone heeds it)
-Reduced severity of accidents

Cons:
-Reach destination 5-10% later (presuming the alternative is a non-egregious amount of speeding)
-Increased risk of serious accidents if you're the only one heeding it

One of those cons ceases to exist if everyone heeds the speed limit (any law should consider the hypothetical ideal of perfect compliance in determining how important enforcement is), and the other is pretty negligible for the vast majority of trips (3-6 minutes per hour of travel at the speed in question). Ergo, you can't really say that following the speed limit is immoral. That's not saying "it's the law it's therefore moral," it's assessing the behaviour that the law promotes and finding it to be generally beneficial, and therefore accepting the law.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

I was thinking more if you were being attacked by someone and waiting for the police isn't an option.

So you're drunk, somebody starts attacking you, and you are somehow able to get into your car and drive away? Even pretending for a moment that that situation isn't absurdly contrived, there are better ways to deal with that than driving any significant distance. Namely, using said car to run over your attacker and eliminate the threat, locking the car to keep the attacker out (if they aren't determined enough to start breaking windows), or driving only a short distance away and calling police to minimize the amount of time spent driving while drunk.

zebatov posted...

Positive being the ones that make it home safe. Ie, almost all of them.

That's not a consequence of drinking and driving, though. Those people didn't make it home because they drank first, they made it home in spite of incurring that significant risk factor. Does driving drunk even one time mean you're going to drive into an orphanage and kill all of their puppies? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it isn't a significant risk factor that is completely avoidable. So avoid it. If you're driving, don't drink. If you're drinking, don't drive. If you choose to disregard this very simple solution to the problem, expect to be punished for needlessly endangering yourself and others.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

how disturbing the deferential attitude of "being legal = being morally right" is,

Basing morality on the laws is indeed extremely flawed logic (classic example: Those hiding jews in WWII Germany were breaking the law, those massacring them were following it), but that's not really what's being done here. I don't think anyone would claim that traveling at the posted speed limit is inherently immoral (presuming that everyone does it so you don't end up with somebody at a deviant speed). It's a well-established fact that speed is a factor in many serious collisions, and the severity of a collision is very strongly correlated to the speed of the cars involved. It's also a well-established fact that traveling at the speed limit really isn't as inconvenient as people like to think it is (in most trips, you're looking at saving a minute or two at most by speeding as much as is reasonably possible the whole way).

Do speed limits need to be as low as they are? In many cases, not really. But it really isn't going to hurt anyone if everyone follows them. Therefore, everyone should follow them. The best way to get back at municipalities for egregious speed fines is to not speed so they don't get their fines; they only do it because it works. Swallow your pride and it stops being a problem.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

If you even LOOK at the wrong one, she'll have you arrested for raping her.

I really don't think you're qualified to comment on this matter.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

but I can think of at least one reason it might be understandable.

Short of "this person is going to die if I don't drive them to the hospital right now and I am the most sober person here," there's no justification for drinking and driving. Even that can be really questionable, because you're potentially endangering other people by choosing to drive instead of getting an ambulance, and being inebriated and emotional is going to make it pretty hard to properly assess those risks. It's probably still better to just learn first aid and employ that while waiting for an ambulance instead.

zebatov posted...

If the statistics don't matter, why do they show the negative ones as if they're worse than the positive ones in commercials? Fear-mongering at its finest.

What "positive statistics"? Do drunk drivers spend more time volunteering at puppy orphanages or something? There is no statistical upside to drinking and driving. Absolutely none. The commercials focus on the potential terrible outcomes because it's exactly those terrible outcomes that you're risking by getting behind the wheel, and they need to drive home the gravity of the risks you're choosing to take.

Don't drink and drive. It's extremely simple. Just don't.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ZetSabre posted...

As long as you don't...

A: Physically touch them without permission
or
B: Continue hitting on them after they've asked you to stop.

Then you're fine. Its not hard to not commit sexual assault or harassment ya bunch of alpha broflakes.

And maybe add "or are clearly uncomfortable" to part B. If you haven't created an environment where she can feel comfortable asking you to stop, she may not explicitly do so despite wanting to, so you need to pay attention to how she's acting. Also be wary of power imbalances, since that can muddle consent.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Chewster posted...

Everyone is tired of NSMB.

I wouldn't really say that. Wii, 2, and U came out far too close together, such that everyone was tired of NSMB by the time U came out, but that was nearly 6 years ago now (well, 5 if we count Luigi, which I suppose we should), and Wii and U were both very good games (I can't speak for 2). Personally, I could get behind another one now.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Minecraft - modded in particular - is unusually CPU and RAM-heavy, rather than relying on the GPU. To that end, if that's all it'll be used for, you can skimp on the graphics card (which is handy because the cryptocurrency plague has grossly inflated GPU prices). Starcraft 1 will run on literally any computer built after 2000. Starcraft 2 is more demanding, but will still run on pretty much anything with a graphics card.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

Try fighting bulls*** legislation instead of asking "How high?"

Or just don't drink and drive. It really doesn't matter how many manage to make it home safely. Most idiots who unambiguously qualify for Dangerous Driving charges make it home safely, because the majority of the people on the road are competent enough drivers to mitigate their idiocy provided nothing else is going wrong. That doesn't mean they aren't driving dangerously, it just means they got lucky enough to avoid situations to which they would have been unable to react safely. Statistically, people who drive like that have a much higher risk of getting into serious crashes. Almost every single one of them would be happy to tell you that they're a special snowflake who's the exception to that because nothing too bad has ever happened to them and they're good at driving like that, but that's not a reason to accept their recklessness.

Same with alcohol. Alcohol impairs reflexes and judgement, both of which are vitally important for driving. That's an undeniable fact. That you don't notice that impairment doesn't mean it isn't happening, nor that you aren't at a much higher risk of causing a collision. That you are less impaired than some others might be at the same BAC also doesn't mean you aren't impaired at all. Being impaired puts you at a higher risk of crashing, and that's never a good thing. If you can avoid it, you should, and mandating that by law is perfectly reasonable.

Quite simply, if you're drinking, don't drive. If you're driving, don't drink. You never need to drink, even if it would be fun to do so. If you do feel the need to drink, consider voluntarily giving up your license until you deal with your alcoholism.

Incidentally, the fact that towing and impound fees compound as rapidly as they do if you are unable to afford any one of them is part of the spiral of debt alluded to earlier that means lower-income people suffer unduly for any traffic violations they may commit. That is indeed a problem, which is only going to be fixed if fines start taking the offender's financial means into account somehow. As bad as that is, though, the only way you're going to lose a license for DUI's is if you're a repeat offender, and DUI offenders stop deserving any sort of sympathy after the first offense. Once can be a mistake, and should be treated as a wake-up call. Twice is wanton disregard for everyone else on the road. Don't drink and drive. Just don't.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

when people think they are a former president, or santa, or god, or jesus, or some other crazy thing... they get put on medication

Because that's the approach that's most likely to yield a better prognosis.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I think that's just capitalism at work. Strangers might give you money if you're polite to them. Family will give you the same amount of money regardless of your manners, up to a certain point.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I-I just ran you over and then gave you CPR to bring you back to life because I wanted to practice my first aid! I-it's not like I like you or anything!
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

On average, but averages don't really mean much when dealing with individuals or other samples that are small enough to be considered non-representative.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mofuji posted...

OR, you know, the brain is a weird, weird thing and what you "are" outside of what your biological make up is (male, female, damaged or otherwise in error genetics leading to a third option) can all be down to incorrect brain chemistry.

The brain is who you are. Your body informs that by providing the lens through which your experiences are filtered, but if that body doesn't align with what the brain is expecting, does it not make more sense to change the body than to tell the brain that it isn't itself?

Mofuji posted...

But since doctors can make a mint, they unethically encourage these people to mutilate themselves.

Oh? What other treatment options have proven effective enough to be considered a more ethical recommendation? Since you seem to know more than these doctors and all.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

You think that's bad? Try losing your license for drinking in BC.

I'd rather not, because that would entail being a complete and utter idiot, and the only way I see myself ever doing something that stupid is if I lobotomize myself with a rake.

LinkPizza posted...

That's assuming it was unsafe.

Being pulled over on the side of a highway is always unsafe. You really don't have to look hard to find stories of cops or other people being killed by drivers that didn't give them a wide berth while they were pulled over. Hence laws exist to mitigate that danger. If anyone (cop or otherwise) is pulled over on the side of the road, slow down and give them some extra room. It's just a good idea.

LinkPizza posted...

Income is way to tricky to actually implement. Well, if you want to avoid ruining people's lives, anyway. Just basing it on income doesn't mean it won't ruin your life if you were already barely scraping by...

There'd need to be some degree of nuance, including a community service option in lieu of a monetary fine. Defining a poverty line as is done with taxes would also cut down on the "barely scraping by" issue. The exact details, I don't have, because this isn't my job. All I can say for sure is that having a flat fine means there are many people for whom a ticket is absolutely devastating, and many more for whom the fines are going to be negligible. Ideally, fines should be a significant enough deterrent to change behaviour for everyone receiving it, but not enough to ruin any lives (at least not for occasional violators), and that means it has to scale based on the violator's means.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The only actual beneficiary of such a policy would be uber, as cops wonder why speeders picked up in the utter blockade of speed traps in gated communities only seem to have an income around $15k.

Meanwhile, kids end up splatted in the "poor" parts of town, because municipalities have no financial interest in speed enforcement there.

Also you can't get a traffic lawyer anymore, since they're all making buckets of money turning $10000 rolling stop tickets into parking violations somehow.

Again, some nuance is needed. You can come up with policies that ensure the region is uniformly covered. Enforcing those policies is another story, since the ones who would be enforcing them are the ones who need to follow them, but this is not an insurmountable issue.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

a_doyle_42 posted...

The onion rings are fantastic as well

I always think this for the first few, but by the end of a bag I tend to find them too salty. They're best split with somebody else, I'd say.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

They are pretty great. Meringues, marshmallows, macarons, souffles, angel food cake... My only problem is finding ways to suitably use up the spare yolks, and vice versa. So often I just end up throwing out the spare white or yolk, which is wasteful.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

4 to 6 inches away and I would have hit the fucking mirror. Get your heads out of your asses

Unless you were 4-6 inches away from the mirror. You don't know how they measured it. And again, in the dark, with lights flashing, I'm more inclined to believe you misjudged the distance than that she willfully lied about how close you were, especially where you should be subject to a fine anyway for failing to pull over.

Teeth posted...

they're so high in an attempt to dissuade anyone from fucking doing illegal shit again

Also that. If these violations still occur on a regular basis, then the fines are failing to discourage them and could probably actually stand to be higher (though again, scaled to be proportional to income so you don't get the disproportionate impact). Don't like how high fines are getting? Then stop being part of the problem, and encourage everyone you know to do the same.

That said, more consistent enforcement would help a lot more with that than higher fines would. The biggest reason people get so uppity about tickets is that they're typically being ticketed for something they do all the time without getting caught (especially in the case of speeding), and that they know thousands of other people are doing without getting caught. Hitting most violators with a moderate fine would yield better compliance than hitting a tiny minority of violators with an extreme one.

The problem with that is that better enforcement means spending more money on cops (and the ensuing "wah police state waaah" from entitled speeders), likely without a commensurate increase in ticket revenue. That means jacking up fines, though less effective, is the more cost-effective option.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

A&W is probably the fast food place I eat from most often. They're quite good.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

pipebomb_phil posted...

Very little character development, John and Pocahontas 'fall in love' right away despite only knowing each other for like an hour or two.

That's like every Disney movie with a romantic plot element, and a good chunk of all movies with romantic subplots.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

Those fine amounts are obscene and the people cheering for them here apparently don't mind when those same fine amounts are levied on the poor who can't afford them and it places them in a spiral of debt.

Actually, I am strongly in favour of the idea of having traffic (and similar) fines being based on income instead of being a flat rate for everybody. As it stands, they're absolutely devastating for poor people (often resulting in a license revocation due to unpaid fines, and therefore impairment of their ability to work), while being a joke for rich people, which means they aren't working as they should be (that is, to discourage unsafe driving). Implementing such a system would get tricky, and would likely end up putting much of the burden on the middle class, as happens with taxes (the poor wouldn't contribute much, the rich would find loopholes to avoid having their income counted), but it'd be better than what's currently there.

That said, if you don't want a traffic fine, drive better. It's really not hard to avoid tickets. A ticket shouldn't destroy one's life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to get it in the first place.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

JixHedgehog posted...

Yikes, that's dumb, shouldnt it be the cops responsibilty to get pulled over drivers somewhere safe and not use it as an excuse to issue more citations?

They can only do so much to pull drivers over safely. At the end of the day, they're still stopped on the side of a highway, which is inherently dangerous no matter what precautions they take. Everyone else on the road therefore has a responsibility to slow down and pull over to help mitigate that danger.

OhhhJa posted...

almost no time to get over and get back over before my exit

In which case you can just miss your exit. You could also pull over to the side of the road yourself to wait for the cop to finish so you can safely take the exit. Both solutions are inconvenient, sure, but their safety is more important than your convenience.

OhhhJa posted...

Then she lied on the ticket and said that I was 4 to 6 inches away which I know is absolute bulls***.

Remember that she's going to have dashcam footage that was credible enough to issue the ticket in the first place. You, on the other hand, have admitted that it was dark, and coupled with the flashing lights of the car I would be far more inclined to believe that you misjudged the distance than that she lied on the ticket.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Judgmenl posted...

Its a sign of a 10 year draw down in the quantity of games I have purchased.

Uhh, a decline in your game purchases is an effect of not liking games, not a cause. You kinda got that backwards.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ChouBF posted...

This topic makes me weep for humanity. It's literally discrimination, by the definition of the word, but most of you won't see it because calling it what it is hurts your feelings.

The issue is that "discrimination" has implications beyond the literal definition. Here, the implication is that we're talking specifically about transphobic discrimination, which is a specific subset of discriminating against trans people on the basis of hatred and/or intolerance. Discriminating against a trans person on another basis, however, can be fair game. As an example, doctors have to do that all the time to avoid drug interactions with the hormone replacements.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

29. Your generation is my generation. A fair amount has happened in that four-year gap (namely, smartphones took off in university for me and high school for you), but that's not enough to really qualify as a generational gap.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How can you make a business with only enough funds to last 2 days?

That's what I'm wondering. A month, I could see, if they didn't make enough in that first month to cover their next rent payment (although it's pretty short-sighted to not plan for that). But two days? That's not enough time to assess how business is going, regardless of how inevitable everyone thinks this failure was. There's gotta be more to this shutdown than that.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why should I have to have sub-par education AND deal with f***ing special kids with no gratitude?

If you're not getting gratitude for helping people, you're probably being an asshole about it.

No, they're self-absorbed. SJWs are my generation, are you surprised I grew up with entitled idiots?

I'm pretty sure your generation is my generation, unless you're much younger than I'm realizing.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

AloneWeStand posted...

adjl posted...

AloneWeStand posted...

I don't she was bitten "several times by fifty spiders." I think she was bitten several times, and found fifty spiders. There is a very important distinction.

Nah, like ten of them gathered around one spot on her skin and pierced the same spot simultaneously. Multiple times.

That still doesn't mean she was bit by fifty spiders together several times

The wording's ambiguous. If could mean 50 spiders collectively bit her several times, or it could mean she has several bites from a total of fifty spiders.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why should I have to have sub-par education AND deal with f***ing special kids with no gratitude?

If you're not getting gratitude for helping people, you're probably being an asshole about it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Pedantically, yes, it is discrimination, because that's just what discrimination means. If you sort your change into different piles based on the type of coin, you're discriminating by denomination. Is it anti-trans? If she's not sleeping with her because she hates trans people? Yes, by definition. If she's not sleeping with her because she isn't attracted to her? No, because she's never under any obligation to be attracted to somebody (and that's true whether the other person is cis, trans, male, female, white, black, or a reincarnated assault helicopter).
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Blighboy posted...

*1 year old criminal

If anyone should be embarrassed it should be the parents for knowingly shutting on the American flag

I can not tell if you are just trolling

I'm pretty sure he is, but the only reason I can say that is because that post is very consistent with Bligh's usual style of sarcasm. Without that background, I honestly wouldn't know, which is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the country.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Men can get pregnant by reading adjl's posts

Duh. Everyone knows that.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

AloneWeStand posted...

I don't she was bitten "several times by fifty spiders." I think she was bitten several times, and found fifty spiders. There is a very important distinction.

Nah, like ten of them gathered around one spot on her skin and pierced the same spot simultaneously. Multiple times.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

At some level, I can kind of understand removing misinformation about pregnancy, no matter how obviously it is to anyone with an ounce of common sense. For a kid with little to no sex ed, being so misinformed could lead to some mistakes, and particularly litigious parents could try pinning that on GameFAQs for failing to police it. As such, it gets modded for liability purposes.

That's a stretch, obviously, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if that was the logic.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

PK_Spam posted...

Digimon posted...

what is wrong with her hands

Shes, like, a rabbit lady or something.

Dahlia's weird. 0/10 would not baeblade.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That's not really anything new. Most parasitoid wasp species do that.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Whether or not she should be allowed to break her lease would depend on the terms of her lease. Something like "The landlord shall take reasonable measures to ensure the property is safe for habitation" is pretty standard, but if that's missing, she might not have a case. If that's missing, she shouldn't have signed the lease, but that's another issue.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

The 46 y/o wicked witch of the west and east is said to be the choice after Orrin said the nominee is a "woman" and given she is the only woman in his top 3 bracket, it's likely to be Amy..the woman who inspired Margaret Atwood to create the book and hit Hulu series "The Handmaid's Tale"

Wikipedia says...

The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel[2] by Canadian author Margaret Atwood,[3][4] originally published in 1985.

1985 was 33 years ago. 46-33=13. I'm not sure she personally inspired Atwood to do anything.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Skype's better for talking to the people I don't have on Discord. Discord's better for literally everything else.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Either a doctor or a chef? That's a pretty big difference in careers >_>

Just a little, yeah.

Greenfox111 posted...

do you and your gf constantly lecture each other?

Nah, she mostly just glares at me for making bad jokes.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dunno exactly about department, but her masters will be in Public History. Presumably that falls under arts in some capacity, but as I understand it, it's not actually an MA, so I'm not sure about the department.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

She is, and hopefully I will be too. Failing that, I'll be going to Fanshawe.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.