@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I'm also a native English speaker and had never heard the song before either. I know of the Killers, but only through other songs (Somebody Told Me and When You Were Young). Never heard this one despite its apparent popularity.

I don't give a damn what their lawyers say. It's Legos, and they can go pound sand with their trademark.

Or they only listen to one line and never pay attention to the rest. Such as people playing Born In The USA in attempt to be patriotic, when the entire rest of the song outside the chorus is extremely bitter about the USA.

Sure, but the specific phrasing of "if it's shown on screen, it must be used" is false for TV and movies. We don't expect that if a movie set has a bed in the background, the character will be shown sleeping at some point. Whereas in theater it probably is the case that if a bed is part of the set, it'll be used. The two media just have very different expectations for what is a normal level of background detail on the set versus a deliberate inclusion.

Sure, I know that's why they did it. But that is their own problem, not mine. And when they chose to solve the problem by betraying my trust, I chose to end the business relationship and encourage everyone else I know to do the same. It isn't much, but one should vote with one's wallet IMO.

Sure. But that doesn't make it ok, of course, and I refused to allow them to continue to get my business after that kind of betrayal.

For me, it was the underhanded way they did it. If they introduced a setting and it's off by default, fine whatever. If they turned it on by default but gave copious notice, that's not great but I might have been ok with it. It was the fact that the setting was both on by default and they snuck it in (I found out from a hacker news comment thread) which I found so unacceptable.

Amazingly, Dropbox has never betrayed me over the course of 15 years.

Depends on what you consider a betrayal, I guess. A year or two ago, they added a new setting that (if memory serves) allowed them to train models on your data, and turned it on by default. I considered that a massive betrayal and moved to a self-hosted Nextcloud instance after that. I might move to Proton Drive once they have a Linux client.

Now you have me curious. Why ultimogeniture over primogeniture? Obviously anything is better than gavelkind, but I can't say I've ever had a reason to prefer one heir over another to be the one who inherits.

It's all right. You can hire a spymaster for that!

10 years? Man, time flies. Dicks out, everyone. Ladies of the motte, you'll have to improvise something. I have faith in you.

Sounds like @ToaKraka needs to consult with the Crusader Kings community, all of whom are domain experts in dealing with the problems arising from gavelkind/partition succession. I'm not saying he should plot the murder of his relatives so that they aren't in the way of his demesne consolidation... but I'm not saying he shouldn't do that, either.

Doesn't the globe fact render the direction important? So it sounds like you can pick any direction.

None of those is the claim you originally made, so I'm not going to get dragged to a debate on any of those points. What you said was "generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups". For that to be true, it would require most black people to behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner (because that is what "generally speaking, (group) behaves" means). To show that a group has higher rates of such behavior does not suffice for proving that most members of the group have that behavior.

Even the FBI crime statistics, by themselves, aren't enough to support the original claim. The claim was that (paraphrasing a bit) you can have guns, black people, or a society without much violence, pick two. For that to be true, you need more than statistics which show "look, most crimes are committed by black people", because it does not follow from such statistics that most black people are committing crimes. You need evidence to bridge that gap, the crime statistics themselves can't get there.

Yeah, the claim that generally speaking, blacks behave in an irresponsible and anti-social manner compared to members of other groups is very obvious and very well supported.

It most certainly is not. If you want to make that claim, you best bring receipts if you want people to take it seriously (or if you want the mods to not ding you for making inflammatory claims without evidence).

I mean, he certainly has strong views and presents them forcefully. I can't say he's ever convinced me by his arguments, though, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "win".

Somewhere in my early 30s I guess. I was 32 when I got married, and around that time my mom started to have health issues. Notably, one time when she was visiting she was super short on breath and wound up having to go to the hospital because she couldn't breathe. I chalked it up to altitude sickness or something, but right before I got married she got a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. I guess in a sense there's not much to worry about, because her condition is what it is. Can't be fixed, only slowed. That was almost 9 years ago, and she was given 10 years by her doctor at the time, so yeah.

Similarly around that timeframe (though maybe a few years later), I started noticing my dad was having more and more health issues because he keeps pushing himself like he's a young man still. But he's not (he is 69 in three weeks), and his body frankly can't take the intense physical work of farming like it once could. He has had a torn bicep, injured his butt some kind of way I forget, and so on. But he's a stubborn Polack (just like me, hah) and he isn't likely to change. I just try to gently encourage him to sell the rest of his animals and pursue his hobbies, like woodworking (which has its possible injuries but isn't as hard on the body as the shit he gets up to now). Perhaps one day he'll listen.

100%, except for cases where it stops fitting (either because I get fatter or it shrinks in the wash). If I buy an article of clothing, it's because I like it enough to wear it.

No, I don't think those two things are in fact equivalent. For example, one could reasonably say that "nigger" is an offensive term for black people in America. The vast, vast majority of people in the nation would be greatly offended by using that word to describe people. By contrast, only a small (but vocal) minority considers "Gypsy" to be offensive. As such I don't think it merits saying the term is considered offensive at all, because unless you inhabit an extremely lefty bubble nobody is going to bat an eye of you say "Gypsy".

in America, "Gypsy" is a now-offensive term for the Romani.

Gypsy isn't offensive in America, unless you're talking to someone who goes out of their way to be offended by everything.

Seconded! I was skeptical about paying for search, but it's so much better than Google these days. I pretty quickly was convinced it was worth the monthly subscription.

I like watches in that I have a couple of nice watches I wear if I'm dressing up. Both of them were gifts from my wife: one is a quartz Fossil she gave me for our first anniversary, the other is a mechanical Tissot she got me for my birthday one year. I generally use the Tissot if I wear a watch, as it's both more comfortable and I enjoy the craftsmanship and engineering which goes into a mechanical watch. I also have a pocket watch I like, though that obviously doesn't get as much use as a wristwatch.

I definitely don't collect watches, though. The three I have are more than enough for me. And I would never in a hundred years get a Rolex. I'm not interested in paying obscene prices to play silly status symbol games. Heck I wouldn't have even bought the Tissot that I have - at $800 it is way more than I would spend on a watch, and I made my wife promise to skip giving me Christmas presents that year when I found out how much it cost. Needless to say a Rolex or other luxury watch brand isn't something I would ever consider buying.

I support breed specific bans, legislated at the local level. Pitbulls around small children is pants-on-head insane.

I think your proposals are reasonable except for this one. Pit bulls are fine in and of themselves. I've known more than one very chill, very friendly pit bull in my day who was that way because the owner cared and put in the work to teach the dog as a puppy. While it's certainly true that irresponsible dog owners disproportionately choose pit bulls, a bad owner can ruin any breed (as you yourself pointed out). The problem is not the breed, it is the owner, and I don't support outlawing something which responsible people handle perfectly fine just because a minority of people are irresponsible jerks.

A better proposal imo would be to strike this one altogether and let the revocation of someone's dog license do the work. If some underclass guy gets a pit because he wants to have a "tough" dog and he fucks it up, well, he won't have any dog any more. Sucks to suck.

Yeah that claim is insane. Men have an insanely high sex drive as teenagers and it goes down over time. It doesn't peak at 40, you finally start to get a reprieve at 40.