zalgotext @ zalgotext @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,683

Joined

2 yr. ago

Our core value isn't Car, it's "individual freedom, especially at the cost or inconvenience of others". It just so happens that Car aligns pretty well with that

I don't understand why you'd put the burden of that extra step on yourself rather than just wearing your seatbelt

Making money on merch/patreon can only happen once your channel is established though. Until then, YouTube creators are dependent on ad revenue to keep them going, and probably operate at a loss until they reach the point where they can supplement that ad revenue. Trying to get yourself established on a platform that doesn't offer any ad revenue is a much harder sell.

I saw this infographic posted a few days ago and it's a bit misleading. The percentages are based on biomass, not population. I also don't remember what the original source is, and it looks like it got cropped off the one you posted here. If you remember the source, could you link it?

Yeah I don't bother with sleep either, I just turn all my stuff off when I'm done with it. With the advent of SSDs and M.2 drives, it takes about 10 seconds for my desktop to boot from fully powered off. I can wait that long lol

For me, whenever anyone includes AI generated crap in their comment, I think three things:

1. Great, I now need to fact check this because you can't trust AI
2. If I wanted AI generated crap, I'd go get it myself
3. The commenter couldn't even* be bothered to actually author their comment, this is the lowest of low effort content, and is definitionally deserving of a downvote

That analogy doesn't really apply though. The decision to change master to main was a collective one, not made by "some corporate board room 1000 miles away". It may feel like that's how it went down because you only noticed when GitHub changed their defaults or whatever, but that decision was not made in a vacuum, it was the result of lots of people saying "hey, this is a problem, let's fix it" for a long time before any actions were taken.

Hey numbnuts, nice job giving us a textbook example of deflection. Not that we needed one

Oh believe you me, I will sleep very fucking soundly knowing I've aggravated an anti-protest psyop account owner

Lol trolling you is definitely a better use of energy than whatever it is you're choosing to do on here

Actually 🤓, they were the ones doing a parade during the no kings protests, while I was racking up my body count with your mom.

There's an appropriate time and place for any methodology. There's never an appropriate time or place for Teams or Jira.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two solutions - one obvious one, and one you probably won't like.

1. Use due process to find and prosecute the people who are here illegally.
2. Get rid of the laws that make it illegal for people to stay here.

The system as it was before Trump was certainly favorable to the concentration camp solution we're using now, so yeah, I think going back to that would be a good start. After that, we can continue improving to one of the other solutions I suggested (or maybe even a third one I didn't pull out of my ass).

It won't make anything better. You can't throw a shitty AI chatbot at a shitty touch UI and expect the shitty touch UI to magically transform into something not shitty for use inside of a vehicle.

Maybe this is going to come across as just pedantry, but I really feel like some people are missing some pretty important things here. The thread started with this question:

Honestly, how is it any better to send young men there? I'm not wild about sending pregnant women and children there obviously, but...are we indicating that men don't matter?

I thought it was wild to leap to "men don't matter" on a post about pregnant women and children being sent to a concentration camp. That pivot felt misguided at best, and misogynistic at worst. I replied with a reminder that pregnant women and children are a more vulnerable group than men, as an alternative, *non-malicious explanation for why the article calls those groups out specifically. I was just trying to push back on the misguided notion of "media reports on group A, therefore they don't care about group B."

Neither would I, and I haven't said anything of the sort.

You're either misunderstanding me or I'm not being clear enough, but I didn't say any of that lol. I'm gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I'm misunderstanding anything please let me know.

All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.

Yeah, I agree with you, and I don't think I've suggested anything to the contrary. I've just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they're more vulnerable than men.

I'm sorry but "i don't like equality" feels like nonsense to me.

It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn't say that either. But what it seems like you're suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, "equality". But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.

Men should have every potection afforded to others.

In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don't see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn't apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.

we should protect all people to the best of our ability.

One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn't satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That's all I'm advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.

Ah, and there's the air of superiority. Beautiful irony.

No, but you are fighting over trivial nonsense

Or, and hear me out here, instead of escalating to a "immature schoolyard shouting match" for whatever reason, you could look at a person's pfp, have your feelings about it, and then move on to something that actually matters

But I am gathering that there are a lot of people who really enjoy schoolyard shouting matches and invite them because it makes them feel superior to fight others over trivial nonsense.

The irony of you saying this is not lost on me