The idea that a state government is unnecessarily at the mercy of any corporation is hard to comprehend. Especially, as in this case, a foreign corporation.
Open source shouldn’t only be the standard for governments. It should be the minimum requirement.
Those splice type of cheats require a highly skilled player who can play well for short amounts of time.
Another thing is that I feel like the era of the private phone number has passed. I see the use case for phone numbers for businesses, but people just don’t use them very much anymore otherwise.
Like, we don’t memorize them. We don’t dial them. They’re just entries in our contacts.
At this point, we could create an alternative way of contacting private phones. Something based on whitelisting instead of blacklisting. Something that can be easily shared but not easily guessed. Something that would be easy to trace who called you.
All of these phone scams rely on the idea that a stranger can just up and contact you without any effort. It’s ridiculous. If we got rid of that, we’d save people from untold billions of dollars of scams almost instantly.
The thing about a cat, it’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes.
Cats have very expressive colorful eyes. “Lifeless black doll’s eyes,” would be a better description of rabbit eyes.
My computer is good enough to run any games I want to play, even recently released FPS types of games at reasonably high settings. Still not good enough for Win11. My weak-ass tablet, though, was upgraded straight away.
Even people who build their own computers usually buy all the RAM they want at the time that they’re building it.
The biggest difference to them is likely the feeling that they’re losing their ability to upgrade, more than the actual upgrade itself. I still think that feeling is an important factor, though.
I forget where I heard it from, but somebody said that it’s strange how we believe that if we go back in time and make a small change, it will have a huge effect on the future, but we also believe that making small changes today won’t make any difference in the future.
This does look like it was printed on the kumquat. I don’t know whether it’s the case here, but this sort of thing sometimes happens when there is something printed on a bag or the plastic that food is wrapped in, and the ink can get transferred to the food.
The strangest thing about this, to me, is that it’s obvious that another Trump presidency would be disaster for a lot of governments in Europe, but what are they actually doing about it?
All I see are the massively successful disinformation campaigns coming out of Russia.
I know it’s hard to remember some earlier Trump scandals because he just has scandal after scandal. But do you remember his first impeachment trial, when it was thrown out so much that there was “quid pro quo”, that Trump was constantly putting that phrase into his speeches. You know, like “It was a perfect phone call. There was no quid pro quo.”
Of course, Trump thinks he’s some sort of mafia boss, so quid pro quo is basically everything he does. You know, like, “If I do this for you, you’ll owe me a favor.” That sort of thing.
Anyways, back to this news story, what Habba is suggesting is that Kavanaugh should engage in “quid pro quo” with Trump.
The reason I bring this up is that it’s just one of those phrases that Trump has gone mental on in the past. I try not to listen to Trump, so for all I know, maybe he’s still talking about it. But anyways, I can imagine people reacting to Habba here by using that phrase, and Trump might go crazy about it again.
Yeah, man, If there was some issue that Boebert clearly understood, that would be the huge news story.
Actually, that sounds like a good story for The Onion. “Lauren Boebert criticizes bill for legitimate reasons that she completely understands.”
Do you remember a few years ago, it came out that some company was working on a new idea that, when you were given an advertisement on a TV, it could require you to say the product name aloud or it wouldn’t continue?
I try not to concede anything related to advertising because everything they want seems so dystopian.
This is kind of an intentional cognitive dissonance for Twitch due to its having a conflict of interests.
On the one hand, it wants to tell viewers and advertisers that it cracks down on adult only content.
But on the other hand, the more adult content they let through, the more money they make.
It would be very easy to either make an age restricted section where adult stuff would be allowed, or to completely banish streamers who are the modern equivalent of burlesque. But one is bad PR and the other is bad for revenue.
White collar criminals don’t really think that they’ll ever be held to account.
I think Christie is just doing his version of what all other Republicans are doing. He wants to win, even if it means ignoring the Constitution.
The purpose of the frosty analogy is simple: it’s absurd for any one to make any argument- no matter how reasonable and then assert that that is how it is.
I started off by letting everybody know I was making an argument. When you’re making a legal-style argument, you try to convince people that it’s true. So, you say things as if they’re obviously true.
This is literally what lawyers do when they’re making arguments. If it’s “absurd”, as you say, then our entire adversarial system is absurd. But this is the way things are actually done.
If I was doing something other than an argument, say, a legal analysis, I would use different language.
you feel the need to insult my intelligence
I actually tried fairly hard to make sure that my comment did not insult your intelligence, but focused on your argument. But I also said that you probably didn’t have the knowledge of a constitutional scholar to actually make the argument. You might find that an insult, but it was part of my argument because you said it was something you were “easily” able to do. You were the one who brought up your own abilities (“I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal”) as part of the argument. If you didn’t want me to talk about them at all, then you either shouldn’t have brought them up as part of the argument, or you should have done the thing that you said you could easily do.
while still ignoring the point
I get the feeling, because you keep trying to bring up other things, that you feel that I’m somehow being off-topic. But then, you still keep arguing against those same points that I’m making, so that makes them on-topic. If you don’t think they’re worth arguing, then don’t argue them. From my perspective, all that happened was that I brought up a valid argument, and you keep attacking it, which is fine. But all of those attacks lack merit, so I feel the need to defend it. If you’d stop attacking, or if you somehow proved your point (which I don’t think is possible), then this thread would simply end.
(By the way, I want you to know that I don’t believe in comment downvotes for anything except completely off-topic things like spam. I haven’t been upvoting your replies, but I certainly haven’t been downvoting them. I am actually impressed when I meet another person like me who argues, but doesn’t downvote, which is what you’re doing, as most of my comments have zero downvotes. So overall, I commend you for that. I’m sorry that other people are downvoting you.)
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal
My argument referenced the contents of several parts of the constitution, including two amendments. It referenced current practices by states as well as reasoning as to why not following the recommendation can have poor outcomes. In response to your comment, I even referenced the contents of existing case law.
Your “argument” lacks anything approaching an argument. Where’s a reference to any part of the constitution? Where’s any precedent? If you can make a similar constitutional argument about dipping french fries in frosties being illegal, feel free to do so. But you don’t get any credit for simply claiming you can do it. I doubt you could make a coherent argument on french fries if you tried. Maybe not even if you were a law student, for example. But I’d bet a constitutional lawyer would be able to make an argument. But anyways, the point is that you didn’t even try. You just claimed victory.
I feel like we’ve gone through the part where I disagreed with you. Then you reacted by misinterpreting my comment. Then, I explained everything, and now, we both know that there’s nothing factually wrong with what I said, but you are still somehow trying to make new arguments. There’s nothing to win here, and in fact, your last argument is quite low quality, trivial to refute.
My point is that I don’t understand your motivation. It seems like you should just acknowledge that you understand what I mean, and we can all get on with life doing other things.
The constitution is a legal document that has over 200 years of being interpreted by courts. Legally, it says a lot of things that it doesn’t explicitly say, and those things are the result of something called “arguments”.
In my comment, my first words were “I would argue that”. This is because I am making an argument that the constitution recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
If I meant, “the constitution explicitly states that”, then I would have used that language, instead. You can tell that by the way I used that exact language in my second paragraph.
Every part of your comment has something factually wrong or fallacious.
I don’t get feedback just because you read it.
My reading the part I am giving feedback on is a prerequisite for actually giving feedback. I am obviously a person who graciously responded to your request, not somebody that you somehow ordered to give feedback. I don’t know what you think you gain from viewing it this way.
I’m thankful for feedback but my sentence was accurate.
I didn’t say it was inaccurate, but that it didn’t tell people why to read the article. You didn’t ask me to tell you inaccuracies. You asked for “feedback”. You also don’t seem to be thankful, because if you were thankful, you’d simply accept the feedback instead of throwing up straw-man arguments.
I don’t benefit if you read it.
You have exactly repeated your previous statement that I already proved wrong.
I will offer you one last piece of feedback. Just stop arguing. You can never look gracious pursuing an argument where you ask for advice and then argue with people who took time out of their day to help you.
Upvotes and downvotes don’t determine whether people are factually right, but they do help you gauge what people think when they read your comments, and what I’m seeing is that you’re not ingratiating yourself to the people who you are asking to read your article. Even if you could win this argument, and you can’t, you wouldn’t want to, because you’d look bad in doing so. When you ask for feedback, and feedback is given, just graciously accept it. If it’s bad feedback, then just ignore it.
I don’t benefit if you read it.
You don’t benefit financially, but there are other benefits. For example, you specifically asked for feedback, and you have received some.
By these standards, most of my adult relatives are actually children.