Lurker > adjl

SpeeDLeemon posted...

woah that's some bullshit. I shall look into it.

It really is. I don't know exactly where the whole issue stands right now, but it's turned me off of buying any further Blizzard products. If I can't trust that the games I'm buying won't be screwed up a decade down the line for no reason, I see no reason to buy them.

---

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

Not in the corporeal sense, but the corporeal sense hasn't been a requirement for tipping since they invented cards.

---

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

Revelation34 posted...

You have to be physically there to put money in an actual tip jar.

You don't, however, have to physically be there to put money in a tip gofundme. It's remarkable what the current year not being 1963 has done for our ability to give money to people.

---

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

Revelation34 posted...

There's no need. Only jealous people get butthurt over something somebody else has.

So you can't answer the challenge and are resorting to personal attacks to hide that fact. Got it.

---

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

Revelation34 posted...

We're trained to call you out on being jealous about money somebody else has?

In a sense. The doctrine of "work hard and you'll be rich" is a staple of American culture. The extension of that is the idea that everyone who is rich worked hard enough for it and therefore deserves to be that way, and that idea had been hammered into your head for your entire life. That you can't seem to entertain the possibility that there might be such a thing as "too rich" that is bad for the country's economy is a product of that teaching, as is the idea that anyone objecting to such inequality should be dismissed as merely being jealous.

If you do want to act like you have a more legitimate point than just parroting the Reaganomic doctrine you've been fed since birth, then by all means, answer the challenge you initially quoted ("Please, make the argument that that sort of wealth hoarding isnt immoral.") instead of resorting to "u jelly?".

---

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

Revelation34 posted...

They're not tips because those people donating have most likely never been to that Starbucks.

It's money being voluntarily given to thank him for the service he provided. You don't have to receive the service yourself to tip somebody for it, as much as that is the custom.

---

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

Solid Snake07 posted...

He said that nobody who's rich creates jobs, which is a totally braindead thing to say.

Very few rich people create jobs to the full extent of their ability, which is what the quotation marks used entail. Quite simply, you don't get that rich by actually paying people enough to live, and at that point, you're not "creating jobs" so much as you are exploiting the fact that people would rather eat occasionally than starve all the time. I've seen the quote tossed around that "if your employees are making more on unemployment than they are working for you, you're not a job creator, you're a poverty exploiter," and while the current inflated state of US unemployment makes that a bit debatable ($600/week is really quite a lot, and far more than is needed to cover cost of living in most parts of the US, so expecting every job in the country to beat that figure is unreasonable), the central gist of it remains true: Paying people less than they need to live is not something to be proud of, and you're in no position to act like you're doing the world a favour by doing so.

Quite simply, if "job creation" is supposed to be a positive thing, those jobs should be ones that people actually want to take, whether because they are good jobs to work in or because they pay well enough to incentivize choosing them over something else. If the jobs being created are being filled only because there's literally nothing else (generally because a large corporation has crowded out the better-paying competitors by undercutting them) and the only alternative is dying on the streets, that's not a positive thing, that's a fundamentally broken system.

---

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

SpeeDLeemon posted...

gonna install Warcraft III !!

.... as soon as I find the charger for my "gaming" laptop.

Be wary of being connected to the Internet while running it, since I believe it tries to install the Reforged patch automatically and that breaks the original game in a lot of ways (like using the most recent TFT balance patch stats for units in the original campaign). You may need to do some manual patching, since apparently Blizzard thinks it's okay to mess with existing copies of a 15-year-old game (unless they fixed that due to the backlash).

---

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

Solid Snake07 posted...

......okay, I'll bite. So if entrepreneurs don't create jobs then who does?

Did you really just equivocate every entrepreneur with the 0.1%?

---

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

Accrovideogames posted...

It says you should eat more the fatter you are.

And that's true, if you're looking for a maintenance value. If you want to lose weight healthily and without messing up your BMR, aim for 5-10% lower than that maintenance value and re-evaluate your requirements periodically. It won't be fast weight loss, but it'll be stable and you won't risk causing any other health problems along the way.

Yes, it seems absurd to suggest that your hypothetical morbidly obese guy "should" be eating 5318 calories a day, but that calculator isn't making any suggestions about broader health. It's just saying how much energy your body needs to run properly at your current size/activity level. Getting significantly less (or more) than that will mess with your metabolism and cause further problems on top of whatever risks are associated with your current weight.

---

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

How easy this will be is going to depend a lot on how the donuts are topped/filled. With plain donuts, it'd be pretty easy. If "nutty" means they're filled with some kind of nut butter, that's a whole lot more filling and it'd be much harder.

---

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

Eggs are a protein, hashbrowns are a starch. There's no reason to choose between them.

---

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

Accrovideogames posted...

Offend me? No. Disgust me? Yes.

The whole "2000 calories/day" thing is largely nonsense, lingering from WWII-era nutrational recommendations. Actual caloric needs depend on height, weight, and physical activity level. I've calculated my own, based on moderate activity, and I came in at ~3400, which is purely a consequence of being 6'4" and 190 pounds. If memory serves, Clench is about that height and probably quite a bit heavier due to all the powerlifting, and definitely qualifies as being highly active, so 3000 is perfectly reasonable. If anything, I'd expect quite a bit higher than that.

https://globalrph.com/medcalcs/estimated-energy-requirement-eer-equation/

You can calculate your own there, if you're interested.

Clench281 posted...

$4000 per year? Are you sure that's not including eating out every week or something? I eat about 3k calories/day and spend about $200 USD a month ($2400 per year) on personal groceries.

It's based mostly on my Canadian experiences. Two of us spend ~$150-200 per week on groceries, which would be $75-100 each, or $56-75 USD ($2900-3900/year). So my mental math on the currency conversion was a bit off. Toss in that we just don't have the freezer space to take full advantage of Costco prices for perishables like meat and whatnot, plus the fact that Canadian meat and dairy (especially dairy. 2L of milk is consistently ~$4, the rough equivalent of $5.50-6/gal) is generally more expensive than American, and that explains my estimate being high. Even so, even if we say $2-3k instead, that's still an extra two orders of magnitude over Bezos' current net worth, so the point stands.

---

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

Blightzkrieg posted...

Oh no.

---

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

Zeus posted...

Which is also a stupid idea, considering that it punishes companies for having more workers.

Not at all. Presuming hiring a new worker is a sensible business move that will make more money for the company than their wages will cost, you still come out ahead even if you have to give all of your employees a raise to match the one you give yourself. That's just math. It won't be as large a raise as you could get if you didn't have to do that, obviously, but that's the whole point.

It's also really not the end of the world to discourage companies from becoming massive. That helps to prevent monopolistic situations, which in turn also helps prevent the concentration of wealth (which is the end goal here). You lose out on the cost benefits of larger-scale operations, meaning goods are going to be more expensive all around, but you'll see greater personal purchasing power to match as local economies are more capable of competing with larger corporations that would otherwise take money out of communities.

---

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

DPsx7 posted...

What does that matter?

Your exact statement was "If you're going to break the rules then you aren't entitled to the freedoms those rules are protecting." It matters because you've explicitly expressed it as the fundamental basis for your entire position. Take that away, and you've said absolutely nothing.

---

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

OhhhJa posted...

Or it could be that the police are overwhelmed also and many have quit recently due to the working conditions. Probably shouldn't be using unmarked vans but I'm not surprised if other agencies or military have been called into help out

Calling in other agencies is fine. Hiding those agencies' identities, decidedly less so.

---

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

Trespasser2003 posted...

He could buy everyone on the planet a years supply of food and not even notice anything was spent.

Eh, not quite. A year's supply of food is somewhere on the order of $3500-4000, even if you're reasonably frugal about it (that's $70-75 per week), so feeding the entire planet for a year would cost somewhere in the realm of 25 trillion. He's not quite THAT rich. Maybe try saying that again in 3-4 years and it'll be more accurate.

---

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

DPsx7 posted...

If you're going to break the rules then you aren't entitled to the freedoms those rules are protecting.

The freedom to vote generally isn't protected by the rules that convicts have broken, though. Murder isn't illegal because it infringes on people's right to vote, it's illegal because it infringes on people's right to life (although, indirectly, murdering somebody does rather interfere with their ability to vote).

The_tall_midget posted...

Remove the right to vote to anyone who can vote themselves more welfare or government aid.

Under that logic, the entire country should have had their right to vote removed the moment Yang put UBI into his platform. That's not very sound logic.

---

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

Muscles posted...

there's no real way to stop it without going to a completely terrible authoritarian government that can, and would, take everything from everyone and leave us all to die

Not really. You can very easily have an effective progressive taxation system without going full Soviet. Just not when your entire government is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists that would rather see their numbers get meaninglessly bigger than actually improve the world around them in any way, plus more than half of your country thinks that's a good thing.

---

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

OhhhJa posted...

I'm not saying the dude in the video was definitely guilty of something but dude had like a fucking helmet and body armor on so its definitely possible he wasn't just some random innocent protester also

Oh, it's quite possible, but that doesn't mean they can't use a marked car and regular police to arrest him instead of a pedo van and a bunch of sketchy people that could just as easily be human traffickers as cops for all their identification. Everything about these arrests suggests that the government wants to avoid being connected with them, which is extremely sketchy and begs the question of what they're trying to hide.

Also, it is worth noting that helmets and body armour aren't actually that unreasonable even for innocent, peaceful protesters, given the number of instances of cops assaulting protesters unprovoked throughout this whole process. But that's largely ancillary to the issue of inappropriate, dubious arrests, which is the focus here.

---

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

The concept seems nice enough, but in practice, it'd be too easy to get around to make any real difference. Cap it at $1 billion, and you just get multibillionaires paying some random people $10,000 a year each to hold on to $500 million for them until they want to access it, or continuing to hide it in offshore tax havens like they currently do to avoid paying taxes on it, or even just giving it away to friends and family members instead of letting it be taxed away and used for public benefit. It wouldn't be impossible to make it work, but it's going to entail outfoxing a whole lot of very highly-paid accountants and lawyers, and the sheer cost of the audits required to enforce it long-term could very well outweigh the potential benefits.

Rather than a hard cap, if you want to cut down on wealth disparity, minimum wage should instead be defined as a percentage of the highest wage (including bonuses) in the company. If a CEO wants to make more money, they must first pay all of their bottom-rung staff more money as well (and, by extension, everyone else in between). Growth remains possible, just not to the explosive, exploitative degree that's currently standard, and that growth benefits everybody that contributes to it.

SirPikachu posted...

Let people earn their money.

This is always the response to such ideas, but I think it fundamentally misrepresents the issue. The vast majority of people saying such things do feel that, for the most part, the financial elite have earned the privilege to live the rest of their lives in complete luxury. Nobody's saying they don't deserve to be rich. The problem is that they've often hoarded enough money to live thousands of such lives, more money than can ever possibly be justified as useful or meaningful for a single person, and their removal of that money from the economy is very bad for it.

---

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

Nixon's particular contributions to it, then.

---

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

OhhhJa posted...

Oh please, if these protests were about tyranny, people would've been rioting as soon as the patriot act was put into place or countless other reasons since then that almost none of these people gave a damn about or were completely unaware of due to their complete and utter apathy when it comes to outright tyranny.

Not really. Just because somebody doesn't riot over one instance of tyranny doesn't mean they won't riot over another, particularly when you get into the question of whether or not they consider the respective instances tyrannical.

---

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

Zeus posted...

There's a pretty f***ing good reason. If somebody is deemed unable to function in a society (thus needing to be locked up), why would you allow them to determine how that society is run?

Largely because of how difficult it is to pin down a reasonable line for "unable to function in society to enough of an extent to deserve a vote." Given the extremely wide range of reasons somebody can be jailed, "in jail" is hardly a good basis for that. Somebody who committed treason probably shouldn't be able to vote, since they've demonstrated clear contempt for the country (though even then there's an argument to be made that voting gives them a proper avenue by which to try effecting their desired political change, which is something they will need if they are to be rehabilitated), but you can't really say the same of somebody who's in jail for smoking a joint.

Like I said, it's very intuitive to say that people in jail obviously hate society too much to be trusted with a vote, but in practice it's much more nuanced than that, even before considering the potential for abuse from lawmakers that want to manipulate who can influence the government. Toss in that potential for abuse, and the issue becomes a lot less simple than it seems at first glance.

Zeus posted...

Precedent is an all-important legal concept. It's what keeps the law from being wholly arbitrary and capricious.

No, it just helps to ensure that the law is arbitrary and capricious in a consistent, predictable manner. Precedent is often deferred to because it's easier to say "we did it this way before and it worked" than to attempt to justify a different arbitrary interpretation, but if you can provide a concrete argument in favour of ignoring precedent in the current case, precedent should not be deferred to. Precedent is the legal equivalent of tradition, and it was once well-established tradition to keep slaves. Sometimes, precedents and traditions need changing.

Zeus posted...

lolwut?

Nixon started the war on drugs primarily as a means of discrediting and suppressing two voter bases that strongly opposed him: Hippies (by making pot illegal, since a disproportionate number of hippies smoked pot) and blacks (by making heroin illegal, since a disproportionate number of blacks used heroin). There's an argument to be made that that wasn't technically racist (looking just at the black half of that, obviously) because it was politically motivated rather than actually being a matter of hating black people, but the end result was a disproportionate number of black people ending up in jail on drug charges. Minorities (especially blacks) continue to be targeted disproportionately for drug charges, with white people routinely receiving lighter sentences (if being charged at all) for identical drug crimes.

The War on Drugs is very much racist in its execution, if not necessarily in its underlying concept. A massively disproportionate number of the people in prison on drug-related charges are minorities, far more than could reasonably be explained by "I guess those people just do more drugs" even if there were any other evidence to support such a hypothesis, and that's a huge problem for those communities.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

What if you play on the toilet with a mini fridge?

You're still going to have to break the immersion to a certain extent to reach into the fridge for food (and to a lesser extent just feeling the fact that you're pooping). Broadly, immersion is a state of not being consciously aware of anything but the game. By their simple nature of being outside of the game, basic physical needs are going to break that immersion regardless of how well the game tries to maintain it.

This is why I scoff at the people who suggest that adding a pause option to Dark Souls would interfere with how immersive the game is. Yes, pausing the game breaks immersion, but if you're deciding to pause, your immersion is already broken because you're making a conscious decision to focus on something else (whether it's a phone call, somebody else talking, your inevitable need to poop, or just feeling like taking a break for a couple minutes). Hamstringing the game's functionality in the name of maintaining immersion that's already been broken is therefore foolish.

---

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

Judgmenl posted...

Video games are way too shallow and are way too short to have any serious level of immersion.

If anything, I'd say length actually works against immersion, since the longer a game is, the more likely it becomes that you're going to have to take breaks from it for things like eating and pooping. No matter how well-crafted a game is, real life will always break whatever immersion it can create because you can't remain immersed in something if you stop doing it. To that end, shorter games are arguably more immersive, since you're less likely to be interrupted.

---

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

Mead posted...

i dunno about that, plenty of regular people seem to vote that way all on their own

That's the other thing. I know you're making a tongue-in-cheek joke about people being too stupid to vote productively, but those who resent society enough to vote against its best interests are still able to vote that way, provided they haven't committed any felonies. Blocking felons from voting on that basis not only blocks a sizable number of people with no intention of voting so maliciously, it also fails to block a sizable number of people voting maliciously who have stayed above board.

---

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

Mead posted...

yeah

delayed games have a better shot though

More accurately, rushing can turn a game that could otherwise have been good into a bad game.

---

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

deoxxys posted...

Its okay

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."
-Shigeru Miyamoto

I mean, it's an Early Access release, so the game is going to be changing and improving pretty substantially regardless of what state it releases in. Miyamoto's quote isn't altogether applicable here.

The primary issue here isn't that the game will be forever bad, but that so much of a game's long-term success (even an EA one) relies on it having a successful launch. If the game launched into EA broken, even promising that it will be good later wouldn't be enough to earn people's trust and secure further sales. They want to release a quality product that inspires faith in the game's future, otherwise they don't get the crucial word-of-mouth promotion indie games rely so heavily on, plus they'll be getting a lot less of the community feedback they're hoping to use to improve the game between the EA release and its main launch.

---

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

Not the movie. Just the series. Having liked the series, I don't really plan on watching the movie.

---

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

JigsawTDC posted...

Also, I think playing Octopath Traveler first might have inhibited me from appreciating Bravely Default's classic elements more.

I can see that that would eliminate the "finally, a turn-based JRPG!" sentiment that BD gave a lot of people when it first came out, since you would have had that itch scratched already. That said, Octopath's gameplay generally felt like Bravely Default Lite to me, with less depth to the combat and class systems and overall less strategic variety. It was still enjoyable, but I would say I like Bravely Default better in that regard.

JigsawTDC posted...

story is also a huge part of games for me (especially JRPGs) so I was let down.

BD's story just baffles me. It started out alright. Nothing amazing, but certainly serviceable, and there seemed to be some interesting twists coming. But then those twists happened... and nothing else did. The rest of the story just consisted of ignoring all the revelations from the game's pivotal moment and repeating the first four chapters over and over again. It was like the producers read what the writers had up until that point, then got tired of reading, fired all of them, and just copy+pasted the first stuff a few times to fill out the rest of the game. It's easily one of the most egregious cases of wasted potential I've ever seen in a game's story, and I don't understand how they screwed it up as badly as they did. Granted, somebody also thought the Endless Eight arc of Haruhi season 2 was a good idea, so I guess there's precedent elsewhere for such poor judgement.

---

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

On one hand, I get the broader logic of not allowing it. Somebody with enough resentment toward their society to break its laws can potentially be expected to vote in a way that harms it, or at least doesn't benefit the law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, being able to say "you broke one of the laws I wrote so now you can't vote against me" has incredible potential to be abused to suppress votes, which is really bad (see: the aforementioned example of the war on drugs). Even if that abuse isn't specifically intended by those writing laws, the degree to which the justice system favours the rich means preventing felons from voting will inevitably have more of a suppressive effect on poor and middle-class voters. As much as it intuitively makes sense, there also isn't really much reason to believe that a convicted felon is likely to vote against society's best interests, since most felonies don't suggest any particular desire to bring about the collapse of society as we know it (treason aside, obviously).

It feels like it makes sense if you don't think too much about it, so I understand why people generally don't have an issue with taking the right to vote away from felons, but ultimately, I would say it likely does more harm than good.

---

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

It's out already? Shows how much attention I've been paying.

---

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

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're asking why people liked a relatively classic jrpg when there is a distinct lack of those.

Pretty much. It would have been extremely unremarkable if it had released on the SNES in the mid-90's (well, aside from the graphics requiring some manner of wizardry to pull off on a SNES, but we'll assume they're downgraded accordingly for such a hypothetical), but in a world where turn-based JRPG's have been largely neglected (Squenix themselves didn't expect it to do well because they'd convinced themselves nobody wanted such games anymore), it scratched the itch very nicely. The story is thoroughly meh (mildly interesting until they seemingly gave up on writing anything new to fill the last half of the game), but the combat and class systems manage to both satisfy the yearning for a classic JRPG while also keeping things fresh and interesting such that it's not relying entirely on nostalgia.

---

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

kangolcone posted...

Secondly, because of kosher rules and Passover traditions, Jewish store houses for grain were often kept cleaner than counterparts. This in turn led to less rats which of course harbor plague carrying fleas.

It really is interesting to look at Kosher guidelines through the lens of a modern understanding of food safety. With unreliable cooking methods and a lack of meat inspection, pork was indeed a good idea to avoid, due to trichinosis and pork tapeworms being very dangerous. Shellfish, similarly, can lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning if not handled correctly. Using separate dishes for cooking meat is pretty much the only way to ensure you aren't contaminating other foods with said meat if running water and soap aren't readily available, and as you've noted, cleaner food storage is just generally healthier. Some of the guidelines make less sense, which is kind of inevitable when you're talking about something as nebulous as the "wrath of God" because your pre-germ theory society has no other explanation for people dying horribly when they don't follow such rules, but most of the restrictions basically amount to primitive food safety guidelines.

---

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

xjayguyx posted...

That doesn't tell me that they don't feel they are human, that tells me that they feel Canada can't afford to take in so many immigrants/refugees.. and well we can't.

We did, and the country didn't fall apart for it. The joys of empiricism, huh?

zebatov posted...

And I never said it was a circle of my friends. Whats with you guys and assuming anything other than whats been written?

You discuss politics and epidemiology with people outside of your circle of friends? Presuming, of course, that "circle of friends" includes coworkers with whom you're on cordial terms (already mentioned) and family members (I would consider that implicit, but not actually stated). Personally, I'd call that a pretty reasonable inference, given that the alternative is to assume that you've discussed these matters with a randomly selected representative sample of strangers, and that would be hard to believe even if you had explicitly claimed that.

zebatov posted...

This is what theyll be staying in, btw. The rooms are about 6x8.

And those buildings are typically owned by the employers and the workers are required to pay rent for living in them, quite dramatically reducing what the employer ends up effectively paying them (since they get a large chunk of the money back). That is one of the more glaring issues with the TFW program, and has been since its inception. It was bad that Harper allowed it, and it's also bad that Trudeau hasn't fixed it since taking over, since it's so flagrantly abusive to the workers.

Until such a time as legislation is introduced to establish minimum standards, though, your ire is probably better directed at the employers that subject their workers to such conditions, rather than at the absence of laws prohibiting such behaviour. That is, after all, where the actual abuse lies. Legislation will hopefully come in due course, but for now, try to focus on the actual cause.

---

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

xjayguyx posted...

Can you show me where they dont feel immigrants should be treated like people?

The part where the height of their anti-immigration rhetoric came in direct response to the country responding to a massive refugee crisis, perhaps? Nothing says "dehumanizing" like disparaging the idea of saving people from war-torn hell, after all.

---

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

Judgmenl posted...

Now that it's affecting everyone, we see everyone being f***ed equally

The direct mortality rate is still significantly higher for the elderly than for everyone else, so I wouldn't say everyone's being affected equally. The persistence of mystery symptoms in recovered people, however, does present some very significant concerns for every age bracket, since we really don't know what the long-term implications are of this inexplicable lung damage or random systemic blood clots or the fact that it's giving people diabetes.

---

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

Mead posted...

last I checked grocery store workers dont sit in groups with 25 other workers, dont all ride a bus together, dont require a teacher for every group of them, and arent children who really at no fault of their own cant be expected to keep a mask on all the time

To say nothing of the fact that young children are just generally gross and have little concept of personal hygiene at the best of times, let alone to the extent that is needed for effective infection control.

Mead posted...

schools can reopen, officials just need to come up with a f***ing plan to deal with the logistics of doing it safely

Honestly, as long as reopening entails having parents sign a liability waiver to cover the school's ass in the event a student dies of Covid, schools shouldn't be reopening. Pretty much everyone involved is acknowledging that it's not really safe yet, but apparently they'd rather use waivers to get out of legal responsibility than actually do any sort of due diligence to ensure the safety of students and staff.

Really, even something as simple as splitting classes in half and alternating which half is in class on a given day (with the other half completing an online curriculum on their home days) would make a world of difference. It'd take a non-trivial amount of work to put together a curriculum that was split between online and in-person instruction, and it would present childcare issues for those that rely on school for that (which is another problem in its own right, but that's beside the point), but it's a goddamn pandemic. It's going to take work to ensure everyone's safety.

---

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

It actually makes his skin look less absurdly orange, somehow.

---

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

Not many. Most of the difficult customers we get are just weird, rather than falling into Karen territory (that is to say, having a sense of entitlement that causes them to treat customer service people with undeserved disdain), and even then, difficult customers are a pretty tiny proportion of the people that come in. Our customer base is pretty solid, by and large.

---

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

Chaos_Echo posted...

Then it's an eternal draw, and both win and lose at the same time eternally because we are at a place far above humanly understandable concepts.

Pretty much. It's not a matter of "we're both omnipotent so now we're on an even footing and whatever extra advantages one thing has will dictate the outcome," it's a matter of infinity always being greater than, less than, and equal to infinity, all at the same time.

---

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

Chaos_Echo posted...

And then omnipotence says that demonbane no longer does that. I don't think you understand what all-powerful means.

That, or it allows demonbane to keep doing that, but then still wins because that's just how omnipotence works. There are no limitations on what it can do, by definition.

---

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

I make a point of not going to bed until I don't feel drunk anymore, drinking plenty of water in the mean time. I've had a grand total of one hangover in my life, and that was when I was too drunk to sober up before going to sleep and then also ended up waking up to puke multiple times through the night.

---

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

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Well that and she probably thinks it's easy money, let's be real.

Her lawyer probably told her it was, and she was desperate enough to find somebody to blame other than herself that she latched onto that as truth.

---

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

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

Don't companies have a right to refuse service?

With some caveats. Refusing service on the basis of a disability that can reasonably be accommodated generally doesn't fly, so there might be a case against Starbucks for discrimination there. That's a big "might," though, since there's a very easy case to be made that not being able to wear a mask endangers staff and other customers too much to justify giving her such a non-essential service, plus it doesn't sound like she has a particularly legitimate disability (not to gatekeep disabilities, but generally speaking, a doctor's note should come from somebody with "doctor" in their professional title).

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

This case won't go anywhere.

This, however, is definitely true, because she's not suing Starbucks as a whole. She's suing one barista for following corporate policy. He doesn't have the authority to undermine said policy if he feels it's discriminatory (she could potentially have grounds to sue if he were fired for trying to do so) nor is it his responsibility to make such judgement calls. She's just butthurt that the world likes him better than her and is lashing out by suing the person she blames for all of it.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

They did not, however, give him the money expecting it to go to her. If they wanted her to have money, they would have given her money. Simple.

In the extremely unlikely case that she actually wins this suit for "half of his gofundme earnings," I really hope everyone who donated rescinds their donation so that "half of it" becomes $0, then donates via a new gofundme so he still gets the money and she gets none of it. That would just be hilarious.

---

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

Zeus posted...

Oh yeah, if Yahweh is so omnipotent then how come he can't heat a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it? Because I can do that!

But he can. And then he can also eat it. Omnipotence isn't really omnipotence if logic beats it, after all.

---

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

Zeus posted...

I don't think anybody deserved money over that.

The money's being treated as tips, mostly. They're giving the guy money because they like how he served his customer. I would agree that he didn't really do anything to earn $100,000, but I'm also in no place to suggest that he doesn't deserve money that people are willingly giving to him.

She, on the other hand, has had no money willingly given to her, meaning she deserves nothing. This suit is a desperate cry for attention and it's kind of hilarious how thoroughly her lawyer is taking her for a ride.

---

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

zebatov posted...

Yeah its actually most people I talk to, so...

Well, if most people in your circle of friends agree, then it must be a universal truth! How silly of PotD to suggest otherwise!

(That was sarcasm, by the way)

xjayguyx posted...

Hey for a party that just started they got close to 300,000 votes. Green party's first year was around 20,000 votes only...

That's not overly unexpected. Fundamentally, the Green Party is based on the philosophy of telling everyone they suck and need to do better and make sacrifices for the sake of the greater good. That's not a popular position, especially not in the 80's (environmentalism has become much less niche since then). The PPC, on the other hand, is based on a philosophy of telling a small subset of Canadians what they want to hear (that the country's problems can be blamed largely on crazy progressive principles like treating immigrants as legitimate people), which is going to be very popular among that subset (especially where said subset has generally been ignored by everyone else).

Quite simply, the PPC didn't perform poorly because they were new. They performed poorly because the vast majority of Canada doesn't care about what they have to offer. Their voter base is united by ideologies that have been trying and failing to gain traction for decades, which means they aren't likely to gain much by way of popularity moving forward because those ideologies are still going to be struggling in the next election, and the one after that.

---

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