fwiw, game after game, I consistently underperform, I apply ungodly amounts of unskilled expression, I dominate in failing at my role....
So I just want to play a single player game with some goddamn cheat codes.
And some people go "git gud", to which I reply silence peasant! I'm a member of the elite PC master race, and I shall play my video games how I like, and if the game won't let me, I've got tools to break the game regardless!
So I just want to play a single player game with some goddamn cheat codes.
And some people go "git gud", to which I reply silence peasant! I'm a member of the elite PC master race, and I shall play my video games how I like, and if the game won't let me, I've got tools to break the game regardless!
How are school systems that fail to teach basic literacy to a single student in hundreds of schools supposed to teach critical thinking?
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
And I think education is only going to work as a decentralized effort. Given the astronomical failure of many public schools in the US and around the world, we just can't rely on them as a path to education as an ideal.
I think it's an important question about who "we" is.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
Are you prepared to have every Democrat former president who's still alive locked up? I can think of things that a malicious prosecutor could absolutely throw both Obama and Clinton in jail for, and I'm sure they could dig something up for Jimmy Carter.
Are you prepared to have every president from now on charged by partisan prosecutors and locked up after their term is up?
Do you think that if that happens it's going to result in a stable democratic society?
Are you prepared to have every president from now on charged by partisan prosecutors and locked up after their term is up?
Do you think that if that happens it's going to result in a stable democratic society?
Woman livid, man trying to hold laughter and agreeing because some fights just aren't worth having
Imagine being so short you need to puff up your hair to look taller than an Asian woman.
I always get a kick out of people going "there was a guy with racist puppets you could never do that today"
What? Have fun? How dare he we should all die in pain for making fun of (checks card) terrorists and chilli peppers.
What? Have fun? How dare he we should all die in pain for making fun of (checks card) terrorists and chilli peppers.
Please pay no attention to the meaning of life. Continue to consoom and work for ultraglobalmegacorp as a drone until you die of overwork.
My first few vehicles were manual, and I've got no problem with manual transmission, but it really depends on the sort of driving that you do on a day-to-day basis. If you live in deep in a badly designed city, when you're stuck at a traffic light and you're moving forward 3 ft at a time for half an hour, that automatic transmission is worth its weight in gold. If you live in a small town or the country, it's not really that big of a deal and the benefits of a manual are more obvious.
That's true, and if there was a general right to medical privacy that they claimed existed in the constitution, then it would apply to many things other than abortion. Everyone correctly pointed out and that vaccine passports and like would have been absurdly illegal, but also the entire medical arm of the FDA would be illegal. The ramifications of such a right existing would be massive, and honestly in some ways maybe positive.
But the thing is, later court case is established that there is a right to medical privacy only for abortions somehow. And not just that, but it is a right that is not enumerated but is supposed to be more heavily protected than every enumerated right. The way that it was protected under roe, it was more protected than speech. It was more protected than the right to bear arms. Could you imagine if the second amendment gave you an explicit right to kill innocent helpless people with your gun?
And as is the case with politicians in america, in spite of over the past 50 years having moments where they had the presidency, the judiciary, the congress, and supermajority in the Senate, at no point that they consider codifying most of the things that were pushed through the courts as actual laws. They just took the arbitrary court decision and declared victory.
But the thing is, later court case is established that there is a right to medical privacy only for abortions somehow. And not just that, but it is a right that is not enumerated but is supposed to be more heavily protected than every enumerated right. The way that it was protected under roe, it was more protected than speech. It was more protected than the right to bear arms. Could you imagine if the second amendment gave you an explicit right to kill innocent helpless people with your gun?
And as is the case with politicians in america, in spite of over the past 50 years having moments where they had the presidency, the judiciary, the congress, and supermajority in the Senate, at no point that they consider codifying most of the things that were pushed through the courts as actual laws. They just took the arbitrary court decision and declared victory.
Senor, I came from the Walmart parking lot, but sam Walton kicked me out, talking about making Walmart parking lots great again.
It seems to me that like many rules, they conflict. The simplest design isn't very usable for example, or understandable.
When you're used to human centric ui design, it seems intuitive after some time but sometimes you'll see someone who makes what I like to call "programmer UI" -- it's very simple, but has no indication of what anything does or why and so unless you're already an expert you can't use the thing.
When you're used to human centric ui design, it seems intuitive after some time but sometimes you'll see someone who makes what I like to call "programmer UI" -- it's very simple, but has no indication of what anything does or why and so unless you're already an expert you can't use the thing.
I'm not opposed to x86 or x86-64 getting superceded by ARM or the like, but I do have a major concern that the end of x86-64 will be the end of the open PC.
We all have lots of ARM devices, and for the most part none of them are open like a PC. You can't boot off of a standard USB stick to start up some thing, because for the most part there is no real bootable standard, because none of these devices are standard. They're each their own proprietary thing, and often they're running their own proprietary software. You make a different sort of media for each one, often running a different sort of OS.
Contrast the open PC, where you can use the same USB memory stick to install the same OS on pretty much every PC, give or take a couple device drivers.
If we lose that openness, I don't think we'd get it back anytime soon. Potentially every laptop becomes a semi-proprietary ecosystem.
We all have lots of ARM devices, and for the most part none of them are open like a PC. You can't boot off of a standard USB stick to start up some thing, because for the most part there is no real bootable standard, because none of these devices are standard. They're each their own proprietary thing, and often they're running their own proprietary software. You make a different sort of media for each one, often running a different sort of OS.
Contrast the open PC, where you can use the same USB memory stick to install the same OS on pretty much every PC, give or take a couple device drivers.
If we lose that openness, I don't think we'd get it back anytime soon. Potentially every laptop becomes a semi-proprietary ecosystem.
Local open source everything. We've come to a point where slowly people are asking permission to do what they want to do in many ways, it's time to flip the script.
Yeah... It's an equation with two sides, caloric intake and caloric output. If you take two people, and one of them is sitting there posting on Twitter all day and the other one is riding in the tour de france, it should be self-evident that if they are eating the same amount the outcome will be significantly different.
So let's take another situation, two people sitting on Twitter all day, but the basal metabolic rate is slightly higher in one than the other. We know that certain things affect the basal metabolic rate such as general activity levels or genetics, and potentially certain foods may it affect that as well.
The composition of the food can also make a big difference. As I recall, the test for caloric intake of food basically involves burning the food in a controlled manner. Well there are things that are highly calorie dense but also somewhat inedible. For example, a piece of wood is made out of all kinds of carbon that will burn, but it is insoluble fiber when it comes to our body's ability to break down and use those calories, and so it will basically leave the body the same way that it entered. If you have one person eating 2,000 calories of wood and another person eating 2,000 calories of sugar the body is definitely going to be interacting with those two things in a fundamentally different way, and so one person will starve and the other person will be more or less just fine.
The nutrients contained in food can also have a big difference. When I first started taking vitamin b complex, I was shocked I just how much energy he gave me, because vitamin B is critical in helping your body process fat.
All of this is true, but it's important when trying to lose weight not to get bogged down in details -- in that case calories are the easiest way to gauge where you are and where you're likely to go, but we're not talking about individual weight loss here but the populations, and given the date points we're looking at the details start to matter.
So let's take another situation, two people sitting on Twitter all day, but the basal metabolic rate is slightly higher in one than the other. We know that certain things affect the basal metabolic rate such as general activity levels or genetics, and potentially certain foods may it affect that as well.
The composition of the food can also make a big difference. As I recall, the test for caloric intake of food basically involves burning the food in a controlled manner. Well there are things that are highly calorie dense but also somewhat inedible. For example, a piece of wood is made out of all kinds of carbon that will burn, but it is insoluble fiber when it comes to our body's ability to break down and use those calories, and so it will basically leave the body the same way that it entered. If you have one person eating 2,000 calories of wood and another person eating 2,000 calories of sugar the body is definitely going to be interacting with those two things in a fundamentally different way, and so one person will starve and the other person will be more or less just fine.
The nutrients contained in food can also have a big difference. When I first started taking vitamin b complex, I was shocked I just how much energy he gave me, because vitamin B is critical in helping your body process fat.
All of this is true, but it's important when trying to lose weight not to get bogged down in details -- in that case calories are the easiest way to gauge where you are and where you're likely to go, but we're not talking about individual weight loss here but the populations, and given the date points we're looking at the details start to matter.