Lurker > rjsilverthorn

That looks more like a duckling in the red light district.

C0RNISHACID posted...

dude....

Yeah, FOX and 'bible codes' true bywords for reliable information.

adjl posted...

Part of it's paranoia over getting sued if the woman changes her mind later, but it's mostly just the attitude that all women should want kids and that anyone who says they won't will likely end up changing their mind later, so the doctor believes they're doing the woman a favour by refusing to do it. It's a very sexist, paternalistic way to practice medicine, but it's still very common.

When my wife was trying to get her's done it was before we were married or even engaged and they kept trying to convince her I should get a vasectomy instead since it is more easily reversible. She was like 'He can get one if he wants but it doesn't change the fact that I want my tubes tied."

I'm betting this will be a landslide in favor of Winchester. Frank Burns just had no redeeming qualities so he came off more as a parody than an actual person. Winchester had his issues, but his relationship ends up being more of an Odd Couple scenario rather than being truly adversarial and he is given some redeeming moments to make him seem more human.

Are we sure he is a Democrat? He seems to peddle a lot of Republican ideas.

adjl posted...

I should see what happened.

Apparently a company just picked up the patent in 2023 and is looking to bring it to market as 'Plan A For Men' https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/male-birth-control-plan-a

Never got into coffee.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I'm not in the group that advocates for legalizing all drugs.

adjl posted...

I guess they're banking on hardly anyone being able to get it done. That, or they didn't realize you were white, but we'll go with the slightly less cynical interpretation.

The correct answer is still cynical, it is cheaper for them than paying for pregnancy related care.

My wife had to fight with her doctor for years before they let her get her's tied.

Jen0125 posted...

Amazing I hope I can someday!

There is one in Australia in 2028.

There are plenty of Weird Al songs where I only know the Weird Al version.

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah all I got was this

It didn't work with my phone camera lol

Yeah, getting a decent photo with my phone was tough. The best ones I got were actually after the clouds rolled in and I could just take them without the filter.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/854d9b8f.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c7c9dfac.jpg

Greenfox111 posted...

It's gonna get all cloudy over here just as its gonna start

Yeah, it was gorgeous here this morning and now it is overcast.

Still have about an hour to go here.

Most of the places around here stopped being open 24 hours even before the pandemic. It might have made sense when there was one grocery store open late, because they'd at least get all the late night traffic, but once all of the other stores followed nobody was going to get enough business to make it cost effective to stay open.

The investigation in question being his relationship with a 15 year old girl also seems relevant.

agesboy posted...

it's mostly just an exercise in realizing how absolutely fucking big millions, billions, and trillions are, even with respect to each other

i used to think billionaires were just millionaires that were marginally more successful. no it's a whole ass new league of wealth

Yeah, I remembered watching this video a while back and it does a good job of driving home just how much difference there is between the two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YUWDrLazCg

EclairReturns posted...

Surely, the author of this comment means "overestimating"? If one is underestimating the speed with which current users would quit G-Mail once given the opportunity, then that is equivalent to saying that those users would take a long time to wean off the e-mail platform. If one is overestimating the speed in question, then one would believe that those users would quit using G-Mail in a heartbeat in order to subscribe to this new and 'revolutionary' Elon-Mail platform.

I think the author of the comment said exactly what he meant. The article implies that people would be reluctant to leave Gmail for Xmail and the commenter is suggesting that many people would be happy to flee gmail. Which is odd because it isn't like there aren't other email services already available and most of the issues that people have with Gmail would likely exist with Musk's service as well.

Musk would probably force Tesla owners to use it and I can see him integrating it to Twitter as well to pad the number of 'active' users.

I felt it, but didn't realize it was an earthquake right away. We are pretty far from the epicenter so it just felt like a big truck driving by initially, but just kept going.

Other-Humanity

Ogurisama posted...

CoWorker saw something on Facebook about next weeks solar eclipse will cause blackout outs and cause other issues with telecommunications. She fucking believed it. Like come on, use your head.

People still fall for the Nigerian prince scams and believe they have to pay the IRS with Apple gift cards so I'm not really all that surprised.

GranTurismo posted...

heard the movie has like no action. And iirc many people expected it to

Why would people have expected it to have action?

I'm surprised he didn't just vastly overpay for an existing mail service and then drive it into the ground.

adjl posted...

The traditional "three months' salary" thing has some merit in that your ability to spend that much money on something frivolous is a barometer for your financial stability, and you should aim to be financially stable before committing to spending your life with somebody (whether you'll be the primary breadwinner or not). At the same time, though, actually spending three months' salary on a piece of jewellery is pretty dumb and mostly comes across as trying to demonstrate your financial stability to convince somebody to be your mate. Buy something she'll like, and only consider cost insofar as you need to for your own financial comfort. If you've been living together and sharing finances for years, you've got nothing to prove, financially speaking, so there's no point spending more money than is needed to make her happy.

I'm not really sure how well that holds up today. In the past it probably made sense since you would be taking on supporting your wife and would generally end up having kids shortly after, but now most couples are both working and already living together before they get married so it doesn't really make any major change in finances.

Lokarin posted...

idk, 25 years in jail for 8 billion dollars? seems like a fair trade.

If he actually got to have the money maybe, now he is just largely broke and in prison.

Jen0125 posted...

However much the ring she wants is within your financial means? I mean if she wants a $200 ring buy it for her. If she wants a 200k behemoth maybe say no. It's all about your own finances and the partners preference.

This. My wife ended up picking out her ring while we were wandering through a store on vacation. No diamond, not gold, and only a couple hundred bucks but it was the ring she wanted. The whole concept that there is some appropriate amount of money to spend for an engagement ring was conceived by the people trying to sell you engagement rings and my general take is any person shallow enough to *demand* a ring over a certain cost is probably someone you shouldn't be marrying.

I was actually just checking the other day to see when the next DLC was coming out. Haus wasn't great but it was relatively entertaining.

Zareth posted...

Nothing like selling something you bought for a third of the price

They didn't sell all of the stuff they bought though, so while they are almost certainly losing money on the deal it is hard to say exactly how much.

EvilResident posted...

Definitely buy 1 or 2 tickets, why not ?

This. I won't go crazy and buy tons of tickets, but I'll drop $2 on a ticket and know my odds are just as bad as everyone else's.

Dikitain posted...

When looking for a video of a stupid joke I heard about eating hotdogs, I came across this:

https://www.georgesgyrosspot.com/2020/04/14/are-you-eating-your-hot-dog-the-wrong-way-what-to-know/

Like seriously, who the fuck cares this much about how people eat their hot dogs?

The internet of course.

OK, I feel less bad about it being mid-30's and windy today after being in the 70's earlier in the week. We had a day last week where we had intermitent snow, rain, hail and wind, but the temp was high enough that nothing stuck around.

EatMan posted...

So let me get it straight.

Free speech endangers children so the government decides to step in to protect them by limiting free speech.

Also:

Gun violence endangers children but the government can't step in to protect them because that would limit the right to bear arms.

Gotcha.

Strictly speaking, TX passed a law that required adult content sites to validate ID's for TX residents and PornHub opted to just block TX rather than comply. I don't really see that as a free speech violation as it is a massive privacy violation. I also see it as being a largely meaningless law for all the other reasons stated in this thread.

adjl posted...

Or if not VPNs, to be active in enough online communities to find sites that don't have age verification and/or have not blocked Texas. It'll cut down a bit on kids accessing porn, but if they want to find it, they're going to, and the government won't be able to do anything to circumvent that until they make a genuine effort to understand what options are available to verify users' ages securely and without introducing major privacy concerns.

Of course, the actual best course of action would be to accept that it's inevitable that kids that want to see porn are going to access it, and from there develop sex ed curricula that include candid discussions about what porn is, isn't, and the harms it can do if misused, but somehow I don't think Texan voters would get behind that.

I mean, it was hard enough to keep kids from porn even before the internet. Now it is just a hopeless endeavour, especially with sites hosted in countries that aren't really going to care about Texas trying to fine them.

GranTurismo posted...

Never heard it called that, thought it might be some wording workaround......

Never heard which? Snapdragon?

Dikitain posted...

I think it is more a matter of "would the NFL allow a new team period". Only one team has been added in the 21st century, and only 11 teams have been added since the NFL and AFL merged (2 of those being AFL teams that got in a few years after).

The only way I could see it happening is if one of the existing teams were sold to a city, which would never happen.

I think the NFL's focus on expansion now is outside the US, given the increasing number of international games each year. Overall though I was focusing more on the financial viability of that kind of ownership rather than the likelihood.

slacker03150 posted...

If memory serves, it is also how a lot of European football teams are handled. I think it would be doable. The question would be would the NFL allow a new team like that to enter the league.

I don't think the NFL would care, they get their cut regardless, I'm just not sure you could raise the billions of dollars needed for an NFL team through, what is effectively, crowd-sourcing. The costs associated to running a team have greatly out-paced inflation.

Smallville posted...

oh, cool. Any downside to this method or way of doing it, like packers people have said it is to the traditional method?

I have no idea if it would even be viable today. They did this back in the 1920's in a relatively new league, the amount of money you'd need to raise today would probably make it substantially more challenging.

A joke I didn't get as a kid watching that show.

Smallville posted...

what is their arrangement though? have vaguely heard of it. So they don't have a billionaire owner?

"The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in North America's four traditional major leagues. Rather than being the property of an individual, partnership, or corporate entity, they are held by stockholders, more than 537,000 in total as of 2022. No one is allowed to hold more than 200,000 shares."

I haven't played anything related to Doom since it was a new game.

joemodda posted...

Lmao who gives a shit what a bunch of fucking New Yorkers think

I mean, depending on what you are selling, a lot of people, but for this particular topic I don't think very many people are going to care because it is meaningless data.

faramir77 posted...

I'm not a big fan of the fact that if you aren't at full health the game becomes WAY harder due to losing the ability to shoot sword beams

Yeah, this was from the era where arcade games were still a major influence on game mechanics so it didn't really feel weird then but it does stand out as an odd choice now.

adjl posted...

I don't even know what this is, nor does a video of accosting random strangers and asking their opinions on a picture tell me much.

Yeah, it is a very silly method to go about getting opinions on a video game. You could probably show any video game to a random sample of people on the street and get similar kinds of responses.

Lokarin posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/tech/vpn-searches-spike-texas-pornhub/index.html

I'm fairly certain the existence of VPN's factored heavily into Pornhub's willingness to block states.

JoeDangIt posted...

North Carolina has apparently passed similar laws but my Internet thinks I'm in Tennessee.

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and now Texas are all states that have age verification laws and have been blocked by PH. Of course, VPN's exist so this is largely a symbolic gesture.

This is like 'solving' underage drinking by banning Budweiser...

darkknight109 posted...

I have met many people over the years who I wouldn't consider "smart" or "intelligent", but most of them still aren't complete idiots in every single category. Rare is the person who is an absolute moron in every single field of life. Hell, I knew one guy who was obviously pretty "slow" (later found out he was actually considered legally disabled by the government because he had an I.Q. below 80), but he could sail a boat better than I ever will.

So I don't necessarily think that "not a mindless buffoon" should be our minimum qualifier to call someone "smart".

Anyways, no, I don't think Elon is smart; I think he had the good sense to surround himself with smart people and take credit for their accomplishments, but like all narcissists he eventually fell for his own propaganda and deluded himself into thinking that it was his genius, rather than his money, that was the reason for where he was. From what I understand, Tesla had multiple people whose full-time job was managing Musk and ensuring that his ridiculous ideas never got to see the light of day (and the absence of those people at Twitter was what caused a lot of the problems following the takeover) - that's not usually something you associate with legitimately intelligent people.

Or, as someone on Twitter succinctly put it after the takeover (not an exact quote, but I don't have the original source on hand), "I heard a lot of people call Musk a genius for his SpaceX stuff; I don't know anything about rocket science, so I thought he must be a genius. Then I heard a lot of people call Musk a genius for his Tesla stuff; I don't know anything about electric cars, so I thought he must be a genius. Then I saw his opinions about computer science; I know a lot about computers and I can safely say the shit he's saying is some of the most moronic stuff I've ever heard anyone say, and now I'm wondering about just how much of a 'genius' he really was in the other two companies."

Self-driving cars was the first thing I can really remember him talking about where I remember thinking "This guy is kind of an idiot."