@DenpaEnthusiast's banner p

DenpaEnthusiast


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:01:58 UTC

				

User ID: 131

DenpaEnthusiast


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:01:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 131

What I meant for option 2 was pay it back yourself instead of getting the money from the customer. While it is true that banks will pay overdrafts initially, the customer is still ultimately on the hook for the money. The bank doesn't say "we paid that for you, don't worry about it". They say "we paid that for you as a loan, now you need to give us the money we sent". Which is option 3.

Because of chargebacks. If Alice steals Bob's payment info and sends money to Carol, when Bob notices this he's going to request the money back. If you are Carol's bank, your options are:

  1. Refuse. This gets you blacklisted from other banks, and your customers can't receive money.
  2. Pay it back yourself. This means charging significant fees as fraud insurance, while also allowing criminals to keep their fraudulent gains.
  3. Request the money back from Carol. This is equivalent to offering her credit.
  4. Hold the money until the chargeback can't be requested. This takes multiple months, and most merchants do not want to (or can't afford to) wait that long before actually getting their money.

If you put the sentence "Ohio law states that you may not loiter less than three get away from a pubic building." into Google docs, it will correct "get" to "feet", and "pubic" to "public". This has been the case for around 15 years.

He probably means cheering. The Japanese message uses the loanword "live", which refers to special events like concerts, not regular live streams. You support concerts by showing up and cheering or clapping, and she's describing her birthday stream as a "horror live", so he's probably intending to watch the whole stream and spam emoji in chat whenever something noteworthy happens. This is pretty common behavior for concerts on YouTube.

Consider the following analogy. We're planning to go out to eat. You suggest a restaurant, but I say I don't want to eat there. You suggest a second restaurant, I also didn't want to eat there. You suggest a third, I shoot it down again. At some point, it's reasonable to demand that I either stop declining your suggestions, or provide some of my own.

This is where Freddie is with wokeness. He says "woke", they say that's not good label. He says "identity politics", they reject that too. He says "CRT", that's also not accurate. The article isn't an isolated demand that they label themselves, it comes after his attempts to label them have been rejected.

This is actually worse because the woke are not a monolithic entity. If they had a clear leader, they could be reasoned and negotiated with. But because they're diffuse with no set leadership, woke group A is under no obligation to respect any deals made with woke group B, and there's no incentive to come to any sort of consensus. They won't be punished for defying their boss.

Stardew Valley did not invent a genre. Most of its mechanics are from the Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons series, which started in 1996.

That's not the same thing. In Star Trek, they were simulating battles without actually destroying their opponent's means of fighting. If you have two drone armies fight each other, the loser still gets destroyed. In Star Trek, if one side defected, the other side would have to send their ships in, and possibly sustain the losses they avoided by only stimulating the flight. In drone warfare, you've already sent your drones in and fought their drone army, so if they defect you can slaughter them. If drones are that much better than humans at fighting, they won't be able to defend themselves, because you didn't just simulate it, you actually destroyed their drones.

If you have new enough tools, you should be able to use modules to avoid needing a separate header file.

Maybe he was confused about what the "scales of justice" were.

Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?

MinGW and MSVC capitalize their header names differently, so it's possible they were correct for the person who wrote them.

If these "birth certificates" are being altered years after the birth has happened, then it doesn't sound like that's what @jkf wants to implement. The name is catchy though, and I can see how it would mislead you into thinking it implements the idea, even though it doesn't.

My family tried to convince me she could still hear and understand

My family did this too. On the one hand, I want to argue back; a month ago she could barely hear us when she was directly looking at us and had a hearing aid, do you really think it's better now that her eyes don't open and there's an oxygen machine running constantly? On the other hand, that will just make my mother sadder and not actually help anything.

Either way, you have my condolences.

If you're on Android, you can also do this directly on your phone with NewPipe.

Not him, but I did basically the same thing you did, except I was less physically active, for about 15 months. The hunger pangs got less severe after a month or so, but never fully went away, and the cognitive problems (lack of focus, slower reasoning, less ability to subconsciously understand references) started half a week in and didn't stop until I started gaining the weight back.

You have neglected to mention option 3: avoidance. Instead of requiring people to change either their clothes or their opinion, just give people the option to not work with people who make them unavoidably afraid or aroused.

That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false. I don't think there were any claims that were (provably) disbelieved by the person who made them. The argument was that executives/hosts had enough control over the claims of hosts/guests that allowing those claims to be made was tantamount to making them directly.

But in this case that means the podcast itself would be analogous to Fox executives/hosts, and the motte members would be the hosts/guests, so it's not a direct example.

Fox news was sued and lost almost $800 million.

This complaint only makes sense if you think of words as having intrinsic or "correct" meanings. If you instead treat words as just vehicles for conveying ideas, then you could just answer "who in the world could we call a racist, then?" with "nobody, using it to describe people is pointless because it doesn't mean anything". And I think that's a reasonable answer if you're not going around calling people racist. If the word "racist" doesn't have to mean anything, then you can just not use it if you think it wouldn't help people understand the idea you're trying to convey.

It’s fundamentally my job to understand what they mean

No it isn't. It's the speaker's job to convey their idea in an easy-to-understand fashion. If there was an argument on this site where people were conflating the philosophical concept of free speech with the first amendment, then when I make a post in next week's thread about the philosophical concept it's my responsibility to clearly indicate that I'm not talking about the first amendment. If there were posts saying that the concept of "free speech" is incoherent and meaningless, then it's contingent on me to specify what exactly I mean by free speech. If enough people are confused, then it's probably better for me to not use the phrase "free speech" at all, and replace it with something like "the right to not be punished for conveying my opinion about the election".

So to answer your object-level question, you could (and should) directly say that you think "BAP has an unconscious bias against black people, regardless of their individual intelligence or behavior". If you want to know how a poster compares with the average 1995 American, you could ask "Do you think the average American in 1995 would agree with that statement? Do you agree with that statement?". You don't have to specifically use the word "racist", especially when you know it won't help people understand your point.

Determining whether a couple is infertile in general is much harder than determining whether a couple is gay. It is entirely reasonable for the state to not want any marriages which do not produce children, but to allow the ones that it can't trivially detect.

That link does not specify time spent in school, it specifies "instructional time", which is not the same. For example, California says that instructional time is "when all pupils in the class are scheduled to attend". This does not include the time between different classes, or time spent commuting to and from school, or time spent eating lunch, but the kids can't go home and be with their parents during those times.

While I would disagree that that time is "most of their childhood", it's more than 1/6th of their childhood. Anecdotally, my childhood experience was the same as the other repliers': 8 hours each school day, and 180 school days each year, which totals to a quarter of the year spent "in school".

The obvious course of action there is to find a second child with the same wish and let them duel each other.

Good universities teach you to program?!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. For all their faults, universities do still offer Computer Science courses to their students, and most of them are useful. Even if those courses are optional, the fact that they are explicitly offered instead of something you have to seek out on your own means that graduates are more likely to have that knowledge than people who went to a quick bootcamp or were self-taught.