Rov_Scam
23hr ago
If you're looking for something more modern, Jake Spicer's You Will Be Able to Draw series seems pretty highly regarded.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
Sometimes its by a less attractive friend who can police the men
This is your opportunity right there. Since 90% of guys will hit on the more attractive woman, the less attractive one is used to used to her getting all the attention and ends up playing sheriff out of resentment, if nothing else. If you hit on the less attractive one, she feels validated, and the more attractive one is both relieved that she's not the one getting hit on and feels good for her lovelorn friend finally getting some action. And if you start talking to a group of girls, always be prepared to hit on the least attractive one in the group. If this girl is a real dog, then don't necessarily throw in the towel, but have realistic expectations.
any girl out doing nightlife stuff has a guaranteed 12+ guys in her phone via dating apps and thus maximum optionality.
Probably but you have to consider the following:
- Half of the guys she matches with won't ever message her
- Half of those who do will open with something like "You have a really nice face but it would look much better smashed up against mine".
- Half of the ones who don't are incapable of texting anything other than "Hey" or "How's your weekend going?"
- Half of the ones who are capable of texting aren't capable of maintaining a conversation in real life
- Half of the ones who actually can maintain a conversation can only do so for about an hour before changing the subject to all the nasty things they want to do to them
- The remaining 1% or so of men, knowing they're in rarefied air, think they're God's gift to women and act like it.
At least this is the impression that I get based on conversations with attractive women I know who have tried it. And that doesn't even include guys who will text for weeks without asking the girl out. So if you meet someone in a bar you can at least speed run to the final step without being burdened by the inherent douchiness that affects guys who are too successful on dating apps.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Read a modern translation of the Iliad done by a woman with a classics PhD that contains an extensive introduction describe the tedious research that was done to ensure that the meaning is true to the original Greek, taking historical context into account to ensure as little misinterpretation as possible from the average reader. Then read Alexander Pope's rhyming translation, that's probably more Pope than Homer. The modern translation is more accurate, but the Pope is more fun.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Chromebooks are terrible and overpriced for what you get. They aren't meant for software but for cloud computing, so if you want to do something basic like chew a picture in .tiff format you have to upload it to the cloud. Forget about running Word, it's Google docs or something similar. The better spec'd ones are the same price as a cheap laptop with less functionality. Your best bet is to go to a computer store and find something you like that fits your budget. Just don't get the cheapest one because they're tech from five years ago that probably won't last another five. I have a Lenovo IdeaPad that I bought for 700 bucks on a Costco deal during the pandemic and it's still going strong (I wouldn't even think about upgrading at this point) but you probably don't have to go that high end. If you can afford it, it's worth getting something nicer that you don't have to worry about. I can't comment on keyboards because I'm a desktop guy and hate typing on any laptop for anything more involved than entering search terms into a browser.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
It's because he's going about it in the worst way possible. He's basically insulting them, telling them their trade policies (that he renegotiated!) aren't fair, and that they're letting drugs and whatever else over the border, then trying to coerce them with economic warfare and veiled threats of invasion. This isn't some rogue country that happens to be next to us, but probably the closest of many close allies. If there's ever any chance at a union it's through even closer cooperation. The first order of business should be trying to get all tariffs and duties down to zero in both directions, and negotiating some kind of Schengen-style agreement to get rid of border controls.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
The left would go for that in a heartbeat, if only to demonstrate the illiteracy of the GOP. The pre-1965 immigration restrictions did not impose any quotas on immigration from within the Western Hemisphere. While it put Asian immigration to a dead standstill, the focus was limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Rov_Scam
7d ago
Title I funding incentivizes concentrating impoverished students in great enough numbers to qualify for the funding. There’s a cliff where the funds just go away. I’ve seen this play out when our district was redrawing school boundaries, it was the top priority.
In my experience, most conservative-leaning people want the poverty to be concentrated, though. I can think of several small districts in old mill towns near me that are having enough trouble staying solvent with Federal funding. If that dries up then it's game over for them and they will be forced to merge with the wealthier suburban districts that surround them, causing a much bigger uproar among Trumpy types than an obscure DOE incentive structure.
Rov_Scam
9d ago
They did pretty well through the point and shoot era, and their cameras were everywhere if you cared to look; in 2005 they led the market in camera sales. They just weren't involved in the pro market the way their competitors were, so when that market died they had nothing to fall back on.
Rov_Scam
9d ago
I think the best illustration of this principle lies in the downfall of Kodak. Their bankruptcy is often cited as a cautionary tale of what happens when you obstinately stick to old technology in the midst of a changing landscape. But that it were true! Yes, Kodak was synonymous with film in the early 2000s, but, while digital cameras existed, they were expensive and people were still buying a ton of film. So they weren't going to just stop producing it (and they still haven't). But the idea that they didn't see the writing on the wall and failed to embrace digital photography is a myth. They wholeheartedly threw most of their effort into what they perceived the transition to digital would look like. They manufactured inexpensive digital cameras and supplies for making prints at home, and they put kiosks in stores and malls for people without the equipment to make prints. What they failed to anticipate was a world where the market for cheap cameras would move to smartphones, and where social media would replace the need to get prints of everything.
And the reason they didn't anticipate it was because they couldn't anticipate it. No one could. Digital cameras started gaining market share before the rise of social media and phones with acceptable cameras. If you told someone in 2003 what the low end of the photographic world would look like 5 years later, they'd tell you you were nuts.
Rov_Scam
9d ago
That assumes that crime and vagrancy are the reason Americans don't embrace public transport. But these aren't problems everywhere. Pittsburgh transit doesn't have these problems, at least not to the degree that anyone has expressed concern about them. I used to rely on bus lines, including some that served bad neighborhoods, when I lived in the city, and the worst thing I had to deal with was poor people listening to shitty rap music with cheap headphones that didn't contain the sound well. While this may be one of the reasons that some people say it's relatively easy to live here car-free, most people still use their cars to get around, despite the fact that narrow streets and a dearth of easy parking doesn't make driving particularly easy, either.
Rov_Scam
11d ago
I always wanted to point that out about Griggs but Duke was so adamant about how that totally wasn't what they were doing that the court just accepted it at face value, so it's codified in the opinion. The problem isn't so much that it's a bad case as it is that if it went the other way plenty of companies in the South would have come up with bullshit tests to justify continued discrimination.
Rov_Scam
11d ago
I doubt it will make much difference. The part about Griggs that everyone forgets is that the reason they weren't allowed to use the test was because they couldn't show that it actually resulted in better hires. The government already uses aptitude testing much more than the private sector, not to mention domain specific testing. I had to take an aptitude testing for hitting when I got my job with the state, and I've never had to take one in the private sector, excepting an $8/hour inventory job I had in college.
Rov_Scam
12d ago
I honestly think a lower dose would be better, especially since you aren't morbidly obese or anything. You avoid the excess skin and hollowed out face that comes with rapid weight loss. I know most people looking to shed weight target a pound a week, and you aren't too far off of that.
Rov_Scam
15d ago
I'm not going to defend Kentucky's system of vehicle registration, because it's dumb. In PA and Ohio at least, liens are recorded in the county where the vehicle is registered, period. In PA it isn't even recorded at the courthouse, just with the DOT, which makes sense since the records aren't public anyway due to Federal law. The legislature had a chance to change it but they put a safe harbor provision in instead. That being said, the court can't just ignore the system that exists because they'd prefer a better system. The bank is the sophisticated party here, and they should know, understand, and follow the law as it exists, at peril of their lien not being recognized. I have no sympathy for them.
Rov_Scam
15d ago
Just to be clear, the creditor can't refile. Once the debtor files for bankruptcy, any collection actions for existing debts are automatically stayed, barring a court order to lift the stay. These orders are usually only granted if there is a secured debt, e.g. a mortgage or car loan. A judge is never going to lift the stay to allow an unsecured creditor to file a lien against the debtor. Doing this would completely subvert the intention of the bankruptcy code, since bankruptcy, with certain rare exceptions, can't remove any liens that exist at the time of filing. If they were allowed to do this then every unsecured creditor would sue the debtor and get a judgment against them, converting the unsecured debt to a secured debt, making discharge impossible. As I explained below, the debtor gains nothing from the banks error, and possibly even suffers a bit himself. The bank is supposed to be the sophisticated party here but they fucked up because they didn't comply with the relatively straightforward safe harbor provisions. I don't have much sympathy for them.
Rov_Scam
15d ago
About 5 years ago I was hiking in the Grand Canyon with friends and we met a 20-year-old Russian kid at the beach who asked if he could tag along with us for the hike back up to the rim. He spent a lot of the time telling us how great Russia was, which was fine, but one of the things he pointed to in evidence of its greatness was the fact that they could "beat faggots in the street" with no repercussions. I don't know if this kind of attitude is typical, but the fact that any random tourist would find it appropriate to tell Americans he just met that apropos of nothing in particular is at least an indication that the attitudes over there go beyond simply not celebrating it. Hell, even the rural Trump supporter in our group seemed pretty unnerved by it.
Rov_Scam
17d ago
I have a proposition for you: We hand all political power in the US over to the blacks. As a white guy, you'll probably be forced to live in a designated area an hour outside a major city, where you'll be forced to take a bus in every day to do manual labor for ten bucks an hour. You will be barred from most public accommodations, and will have to get official permission before traveling anywhere outside your home; even going to work will require you to present proof that you actually have a job. Your own political power is nonexistent, and the government doesn't even pretend that you have anything resembling civil rights. The tradeoff is that the United States sees unprecedented GDP growth. Do you take this bargain?
Rov_Scam
18d ago
I think you're misunderstanding the situation here, to the extent that you think that the creditor wants to take the truck and that the man somehow benefits by declaring the incorrect county. The second idea can be dismissed quickly; this isn't a repossession, but a bankruptcy case in which the trustee is challenging the lien. The trustee's job is to sell property for the benefit of creditors. The trustee winning the action means the truck is going to get sold and the proceeds distributed among all the creditors named in the bankruptcy; the man doesn't get to keep the truck.
The other point is a bit more complicated, in that the creditor winning this action actually increases the chances that the man gets to keep the truck. If the creditor has a security interest in the truck, and there isn't enough equity for it to be worth it for the trustee to sell it, then the creditor has four options:
-
He can ask the debtor to reaffirm the debt. The bankruptcy won't extinguish the creditor's security interest, but it will extinguish the debtor's personal obligation to pay. It's fairly common for bankrupts to have auto loans well in excess of the vehicle's value. After a reaffirmation the loan survives the bankruptcy, and the debtor continues to be personally liable for it, meaning that if they don't make the payments it could continue to affect their credit score and the creditor can continue to take collection actions (phone calls, letters, etc.). They can still repossess the car, and continue to hold the debtor for accountable for any shortage. They can go after the debtor's other assets to the extent that state law allows. This is almost always what auto creditors want you to do. When I did bankruptcy, debtors would occasionally ask about this because they needed a car and were pessimistic on their ability to get an auto loan after discharge. I told them up front that if they insisted on this they'd need to find another attorney, because I wouldn't do it, and trustees, who have to act in the best interests of the debtor as well as the creditors, have to approve and they're increasingly reluctant to allow these agreements outside of the rare cases when they make sense.
-
The creditor can repossess the truck. This happens fairly often, but not as often as you'd might think. Again, a lot of car loans are underwater, so getting the car is a consolation prize. Furthermore, the creditor has no idea what kind of condition the vehicle is in, mileage, etc. And repossession isn't free. They have to hire a tow truck to pick up the car. They then have to find somewhere to store it, assuming the bank manager's house isn't an option. It's probably going to be sold at a dealer auction, where it won't fetch anywhere near it's market value. The fact that the truck in this case is a commercial vehicle complicates things even further, as the incidental costs are larger, the market is smaller, and things like DOT safety standards make it third-party purchase riskier. Again, it's a consolation prize.
-
The creditor can redeem the truck. This is only available in the event that the loan is underwater. Say he owes $50,000 and the truck is only worth $30,000. If he can come up with $30,000 cash he can have the truck for that amount. This is a better deal for the creditor than repossession, since it avoids all of the incidental expenses and risk of selling below market. The downside is that it requires the debtor to come up with a lot of cash at a time when they, almost by definition, aren't doing well financially. It makes the most sense when the vehicle is only worth, like, a few thousand dollars that the debtor can save up while the bankruptcy is pending. There are also companies that offer redemption loans, but these almost always have ridiculously high interest rates, though they may be worth it if the car is worth keeping.
-
The final option is called a "ride through". This was technically eliminated by the 2005 bankruptcy reforms, but it's made a comeback in the form of the "back door ride through" and the realities of the situation. It used to be that the bankruptcy code prohibited a creditor from seizing collateral after discharge, so long as the loan was current. What this meant was that, if the loan was current at the time of filing, you could just continue making payments and keep the car. Since there was no formal affirmation, if you couldn't afford the payments or just wanted a new car, you could stop paying at any time without detriment to your own financial position. While the bankruptcy code no longer affords debtors this protection, a number of state laws still prohibit creditors from seizing collateral when payments are current. Furthermore, remember that repossession isn't free. The banks pushed for this reform because they thought it would lead to more affirmations. It actually led to more repossessions.
Unfortunately for them, this push was based on what they thought they wanted, but after several years it became clear that the economics didn't make sense. It costs the banks about $500 per reaffirmation in legal costs and filing fees. So 100 affirmations costs them $50,000. If the default rate is 10%, then it's costing them $50,000 to pursue ten delinquencies. And what do they actually get for that? Well, they already had the right of repossession, so all they're really getting is the right to sue people who filed bankruptcy in the past few years. Tack on more legal fees, and add into it the fact that most of these people aren't going to have many recoverable assets, and it doesn't look too good. Even in the best case scenario, where they can collect every judgment in full and there are no additional legal fees, it's unlikely that the total value of the suits is going to add up to what they paid—they could be paying $50,000 for the right to collect $30,000. And since reaffirmation is such a bad deal for the debtor, they're now forced to repossess on a lot of loans where they might have otherwise been paid in full.
So in addition to your attorney warning against it and the trustee skeptical at best, we now have the situation where reaffirmation might not even be an option. I know that Ford Motor Credit still follows the letter of the law and insists on reaffirmation, and local credit unions often do because of complicated cross-collateralization agreements and the fact that they seem to take things personally. But otherwise, most debtors who aren't behind on payments end up keeping the car.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
I would also clarify that the upshot here isn't that the debtor gets to keep the truck. For the sake of argument, let's assume that sale of the truck will recover $50,000 after fees, which amount is exactly the same as the lien Creditor A claims against it. This is the only property of the estate available for distribution. Let's also assume that the debtor has $100,000 in total debt, and that the other $50,000 is from an unsecured loan from Creditor B. This is a straight Chapter 7 liquidation. If Creditor A's lien is valid, then Creditor a gets the full $50,000 proceeds and Creditor B gets nothing. Since the court ruled the lien was invalid, there's now $50,000 to be split between two unsecured creditors, and each would get $25,000.
Rov_Scam
18d ago
Under Kentucky, law, they aren't; that's the purpose of the safe harbor provision. The problem is that they didn't comply with the safe harbor provision by only getting an attestation rather than a sworn declaration. To be clear, all an attestation is is a verification by the notary that the person whose signature is on the document is the person who signed it. The change would have been trivial to make at the time of signing, and the bank shouldn't be exempt from the consequences of not following the law.
Rov_Scam
19d ago
A lot of the pro-Trump/pro-deal faction on here like to describe themselves as realists and pat themselves on the back for understanding Realpolitik and not being squishy idealists. It seems to me, though, that the Realpolitik goes in the other direction. Russia is our biggest foreign military threat, and is the biggest threat to our allies as well. While I'd prefer a world in which they didn't invade Ukraine, they've proven both that they are too incompetent to score a quick victory and too bullheaded to call off their dogs. For their part, the Ukrainians don't seem to have any interest in capitulating.
What we have here, boys and girls, is a proxy war. Whether or not Ukraine has a shot at "winning" or regaining significant territory is irrelevant. Every day that the war continues is another day that the Russian military continues to deteriorate without any loss of American life? But what about the Ukrainians? As long as they're want to keep fighting, we should support them. They're morally in the right here, so I don't see what forcing a settlement on them accomplishes. If the war becomes unpopular enough that the situation changes, then I'm all for changing along with it, but other than a few anecdotal accounts of people fleeing conscription, I'm not seeing it. If there were mass anti-Zelensky protests in the street, we'd know about it. And the idea that Ukraine can't sustain these kinds of losses for much longer is hogwash. In World War I, Germany, with about the same population, lost close to 2 million war dead. Ukraine's population was similar at the beginning of World War II and they lost 1.6 million war dead, in addition to over 5 million civilians. In 3 years of fighting, Ukraine has lost about 100,000 soldiers and a few thousand more civilians. This war can continue for a very long time.
The thing that pisses me off the most about this, though, is that Trump makes it sound like a deal is ready to go and all that's missing is Zelensky's signature, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. All we have is Trump's word that Putin is willing to deal, but for all we know that could mean anything. There seems to be some suggestion that the front lines will be frozen, but I just don't see that happening. I don't see Putin letting the forces in Kursk who he's been unable to dislodge in 6 months being allowed to stay indefinitely. It wouldn't surprise me if, in addition to this, Putin were to start demanding additional concessions, like Ukrainian withdrawal from the entirety of the regions he wants to annex.
And at this point there's no reason for Puitin not to make such demands. If he gets them he gets them, and if he doesn't, then he's in the same position he was a few months ago. And what does Trump do in that situation? He certainly hasn't indicated that if Putin is the one that isn't willing to deal, that he'd send US troops or drastically increase aid or anything like that. In other words, I really just don't see how making this deal furthers American interests in the region. I can see how it furthers Donald Trump's personal interest, in that he wants credit for ending the war regardless of how bad a deal it is or whether the peace lasts longer than the end of his administration. I honestly don't see the point in all this.
And one final point: A bunch of people have said that it's better for Ukrainians that the killing stops and that they still have a country, period. First, if you're going to make that argument, at least acknowledge that Putin is more to blame for all of this than Zelensky. He could end this war right now if he cared to, but he's more concerned about pursuing his revanchist vision of Mother Russia. Second, if you want to do this, don't talk about realism, and don't talk about how you personally don't give a fuck about whether Ukraine survives because you only care about America. These views simply aren't compatible.
Rov_Scam
22d ago
I don't see what's so bad about it, and it's certainly less annoying than your making accusations and using them to paint half of the entire population with a broad brush. I'm not a huge fan of people announcing their exit, but this is certainly preferable to past users who have decided to end their time here with a long whinge about why they're leaving, complete with accusations about the mods not acting fairly since most of them were skirting perma-bans anyway.
Rov_Scam
25d ago
As someone pointed out below, rare earths aren't valuable. Furthermore, the largest mining company in the US that does them operates a single mine in California; a concession in a war zone probably doesn't appeal to them too much. But even if all of the above didn't matter, so what? I don't see how a mining concession is different than any other business interest or how the presence of a mining operation is supposed to be some kind of deterrent. If Russia wants to attack Ukraine, the miners aren't going to start shooting at them. The US isn't going to start a war against Russia over potential disruption of an unprofitable mining operation that's probably mostly Ukrainian workers anyway. If this is what counts as 3D chess, consider me unimpressed.
Arguments concerning the science of anything relating to puberty blockers or hormones or anything else concerning transgenderism are useless, because no one making arguments on either side really cares about the science. All it is is cover for whatever argument they want to make. For instance, suppose some children develop a heart condition that they may grow out of but will become a dangerous, chronic problem if it persists into adulthood. There's a treatment that can significantly mitigate this risk if the child starts taking it around age ten, but it comes with a catch: It has its own risks, and can cause permanent damage itself if it's unnecessarily used. If you're a doctor making a recommendation or a parent looking to make a decision, then your conclusion would depend on a number of factors—the likelihood that the child will grow out of the condition, the amount of damage the untreated condition is likely to cause, the amount of damage the treatment is likely to cause, etc.
But that's a heart condition. It has no political, cultural, or social implications. The only circumstance in which society will judge you for your choice is if the scientific evidence clearly supports a particular course of action, e.g., if the chances of the kid growing out of it are low, the consequences of an untreated condition are severe, and the potential risks of treatment are mild. But if it's anywhere near a Hobson's choice, it would be unusual for people to make categorical statements about what the correct course of action is in all cases, or for there to be a sustained public effort to influence legislation on the issue.
So ultimately whether it's reversible doesn't matter. For the anti-trans crowd, if it were 100% consequence-free and there was next to no chance that the kid would grow out of wanting to be the opposite sex, they would still be against it on principle. The same is true in the other direction, though the hardcore trans activists are much fewer in number. So quote statistics and talk about risks until the end of time if you want to, but keep in mind that it's irrelevant to the conversation.
More options
Context Copy link