Hacksaw

Looking back I don't see anything I wrote, that says they should move

This you?

I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting... Brilliant

I work in aerospace regulation and the latest media coverage has been quite upsetting for me. There is a huge difference between delegation (how the aerospace regulator gives approval power to people in companies) and self-regulation, but I'm not clever enough to summarise them in this format. So instead I'd like to share two facts that can summarize the outcome instead.

1. An airliner is a chunk of metal full of people 30,000 ft in sky propelled to near the speed of sound by burning kerosene in a tube. With all of that is safer than driving in your car or going for a swim. That's aerospace regulation at work, and it has always included delegation. It's almost the safest industry there is even when you include Boeing's criminal fraud and attempts to abuse the system.

2. Boeing had to ground their fleet for years and now is being charged with criminal fraud for deceiving the FAA (the aerospace regulatory body in the USA). Self regulated industries rarely face consequences.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I wish I could explain the process better but I think it's very effective and has a proven track record across the world. Almost all modern countries use the same regulatory framework because it delivers incredible safety at a reasonable (by aerospace standards) cost to the government.

I hope more industries transition to a similar framework. If we had an FAA for finance and environmental protection, I think we could end scam shell companies and illegal pollution in a decade. But it would probably be "big government socialism" so there isn't much hope.

No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn't justify abusing your partner. Missing someone's text doesn't justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up "the usual" also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it's pretty clear she expects him to provide the "correct" response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.

It's a response to your second paragraph which is "she's not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood".

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it's just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don't notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went "you can't take an artist's life work and exploit it, that's unfair, it's OUR job to take an artist's life's work and exploit it"

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that's potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don't have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don't have a lot of people working on the answer because we're still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we're doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We've broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we're paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn't a lot of money in the solution, so it's hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

Breaking a hymen when you first have sex is indeed a myth, but so is the idea that sufficient arousal will prevent tearing every hymen.

Hymens come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and elasticities. They can tear from many things but most people with hymens are quite likely to experience minor tearing or bleeding the first time they have sex. That's especially true if the hymen is particularly large or thick and if you haven't torn it before the first time you had sex.

That's the last myth, even if breaking a hymen was a real thing required for sex, it doesn't say anything about virginity because many girls tear it in childhood and puberty from a variety of activities as innocuous as swimming.

https://flo.health/menstrual-cycle/health/period/what-is-hymen-and-how-it-changes

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fenton-appeal-1.4397286

Only one cop was punished. His sentence was losing 60 paid vacation days, probably 2 years without vacation at his seniority.

"It is difficult for us to conceive how convictions for the mass arrests, found to be unlawful, of hundreds of individuals in contravention of their Charter rights are not at the more serious end of the spectrum of misconduct."

The panel that sentenced him admits his behaviour was heinous, but gave him such a slap on the wrist.

He argued in court that what he did was fair and it's unreasonable to expect him to have done better.

The people who were arrested and forced to stand outside in the rain without food or water for hours won a 16 million dollar class action settlement and had their records expunged. But it took nearly a decade because the police was trying to weasel out of it. A decade with a wrongful criminal record sets you back more than 16k/person.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958

Maxwell's lawyers said the trial was tainted because one juror failed to disclose he had been sexually abused as a child.

The Constitution says a jury of your peers, not your victims, I demand a jury of pedo sex traffickers!

• Ghislaine's lawyers, probably

I feel this is a big win for her, she obviously suffered a horrible trauma and this website was what facilitated that.

I don't know how this is a win for the internet. This was a website that clearly said "we connect random strangers", and they did, and a fucked up thing happened as an improbable event based on human nature. It doesn't seem to be caused by some fundamental aspect of the way the website works. I don't really know how this could have been avoided. How would the website know who is a pedophile? How would the website know who is a child? I can't think of a way without fundamentally changing user identity on the internet. I'm not sure what this means for anonymous internet interactions.

Greta Thurnberg a young woman appalled by politicians watching the world burn and doing nothing, unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifice for future generations.

Kyle Rittenhouse racist proud boy who murdered black [lives matter supporters] people for fun and profit.

Yeah, I can see how they fit the bold young activist figurehead role for each side, but the juxtaposition REALLY highlights how disgusting right wing politics are.

[Edit]

No. It's still 50-50. Observing doesn't change probabilities (except maybe in quantum lol). This isn't like the Monty Hall where you make a choice.

The problem is that you stopped your probably tree too early. There is the chance that the first kid is a boy, the chance the second kid is a boy, AND the chance that the first kid answered the door. Here is the full tree, the gender of the first kid, the gender of the second and which child opened the door, last we see if your observation (boy at the door) excludes that scenario.

1 2 D E

B B 1 N

B G 1 N

G B 1 Y

G G 1 Y

B B 2 N

B G 2 Y

G B 2 N

G G 2 Y

You can see that of the scenarios that are not excluded there are two where the other child is a boy and two there the other child is a girl. 50-50. Observing doesn't affect probabilities of events because your have to include the odds that you observe what you observed.

A lot of the responses are correct, but there is one aspect being missed.

Liberals don't NEED to hate conservatives. There are real problems in the world that the left is trying to remedy.

Conservatives NEED to hate the left. Modern conservatism (and some would argue all conservatism) doesn't have any moral ideology. There is nothing they're fighting to for. Conservative ideology is the idea that there is a group that the law should protect but not bind and a group that the law should bind but not protect. To push this, an out-group has to be created and hate is the only way to dehumanize someone enough to treat them the way conservatives treat women, minorities, LGBTQ+ etc...

Conservatives hate Liberals because conservatism doesn't work without hate. They hate because they NEED to.

Damn that's a lot of people declaring that THEY'RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they're speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person's brain. That's where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else's. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They're now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don't think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you're an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you're autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you'll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc... in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can't communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It's not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn't really a right or wrong in this situation.

Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don't, they're at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law

She didn't do anything that would be considered a "legitimate reason", and although applied uniformly, it's difficult to prove that an AI model doesn't discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.

I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to "lower class" criminal behavior like shoplifting.

I'm really torn about this. He's in jail now for driving without a license. That in itself doesn't harm anyone. It could very well be that he just didn't have the money to renew his driver's license. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing deserving of jail time by itself. As for the driving, in a lot of places it's not possible to keep a job, or go to the doctors office, without a car.

That being said, since he doesn't have a license, his insurance, even if he had any, is void and therefore he is a liability. He clearly isn't going to stop driving when he isn't legally entitled to.

In a society where driving isn't often optional, I feel like the law is more callous than necessary. I don't have a solution though. Maybe drivers licenses could be free so that your license would only be suspended for cause?

The video is absolutely hilarious though. The comedic timing is as good as a sitcom. No marks.

By the time these fucking boomers retire we'll be geriatric too :(

Yeah, they won't let me give a speech to Congress either. They're stifling MY free speech too.

What's that? That's not what free speech means?

You start off strong then move straight to supporting the fucking Taliban, as if that's a reasonable position to take.

I agree, the article is likely highly sensationalized, but let's be clear the Taliban are a piece of shit government with extremely regressive and repressive views. Maybe this shit doesn't happen in Kabul, but Kabul seems bad enough that women can only show their faces and most are even too afraid to do that. That shows you that it's a TERRIBLE place to start with even in the best places. Unfortunately many people don't live in Kabul and it seems that the government isn't going to do anything to stop regional authorities from abusing their power and any young woman they can get their hands on.

Don't travel to Afghanistan. Every dollar that goes to Afghanistan supports religious oppression.

Yes, good point. These people are desperate, so we should let a wildly irresponsible company, who during animal testing had identified the thread retraction issue and not fixed it, we should let them experiment on desperate humans because fuck them I guess.

Yeah the guy was able to do something cool for a while, but now he's quickly getting back to where he was and with bonus bits of metal all over his brain and no way to fix the problem.

I don't know if that's a trade he or anyone would have made going in.

They need to stop messing around with this Musk "fail fast" approach, that's not acceptable in medicine. You can't speed up your research by endangering the most desperate people in society.

Most raisin Bran cereal (including Kellogg's) coat the raisins in more sugar! https://www.seriouseats.com/cereal-eats-the-great-raisin-bran-off

Most of those fears aren't completely valid anymore.

1. You can park it outside.
2. winter gets you less mileage but not the end of the world, some of the fastest growing EV markets are cold countries.
3. You might be surprised, a lot of grocery stores and even workplaces have some basic charging capabilities. Plus you can charge at home.
4. If you have an electric dryer you can charge your car overnight, just don't do both together.
5. Batteries will outlast any lease, if you're looking to get 10-15 years out of a car that would be understandable, but if you're leasing it won't be a problem.

More people were killed in the firebombing.

The theory that more people would have died of the nukes weren't dropped is FAR from settled fact. The Japanese were already looking to surrender and it's not likely the bomb played a big part in that decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?wprov=sfla1

Regardless it's nothing to get banned over, that's for sure.

It's not blind support. It's an educated guess based on the fact that those 3 people tend to froth at the mouth in rage against laws that are good for society and support laws that are TERRIBLE for society. So far their track record has been good enough that if they're mad about a law, it's probably a good law.

I don't know why this needs to be explained to you. I'm going to log this as a donation to aid the mentally impaired on my taxes.

Not to mention legitimate bed and breakfasts are still legal and well regulated businesses.

LMFAO.... Typical conservative, when the other side does it is all "see this is what they want" but when it's their side that does is, which is to say 99% of the time someone does something heinous to another human being, it's all "why are you making this political?" ... I don't know, because conservatives have been trying to exterminate trans people for decades now?? As if anyone but a conservative would kill someone for being trans. What a joke!

The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.

The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn't up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.

Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.

That's the problem with investors, if they're not making more money than last year they find a way to fuck the rest of us. Either they pressure companies to lay off workers, they pressure the government to cut taxes, lower pesky labour and environmental regulations, or just handover cash in the form of a subsidy or bailout.

Either way they get our money somehow and enshittify our lives. If there's no hell we'll need to invent a special kind of justice for these people.

That's a common belief, but it's not correct. It isn't MEANT as anything. It's purely incidental. A jury not guilty finding is irreversible. And jurors have certain criminal and civil immunity in their roles as jurors. Both of those facts are important for the functioning of our legal system, but they create a loophole. This loophole was named "Jury nullification" and was mostly used for terrible things like letting racists off.

I'm not saying it's not possible to use it for good, but it's certainly not some intended function of the justice system that's being kept quiet by the powers that be.

Veni, vidi.... veni

Not OP, but if you can't convince a person to kill another person then you shouldn't be able to kill them anyways.

There are points in historical conflicts, from revolutions to wars, when the very people you picked to fight for your side think "are we the baddies" and just stop fighting. This generally leads to less deaths and sometimes a more democratic outcome.

If you can just get a drone to keep killing when any reasonable person would surrender you're empowering authoritarianism and tyranny.

My favorite part about your anecdote is that they literally didn't have any chili, so phone or no phone you're not getting a chili cheese dog and it's the manager's fault not this has station clerk. Even if the woman didn't own a phone your experience would have been identical in practice, unless you think eye contact with a woman is included in the price of the chili cheese dog you didn't buy.

Your only complaint is that she was on her phone. Not that she could have done something if she wasn't on her phone. Just "phone bad". Classic boomer entitlement.

I think the point of the comment was that in the last few decades the rhetoric has been: "Taxes bad" "Government provides free bus passes to underprivileged people" Always divorcing taxes from their positive effects on society. Maybe they were trying to fight that by directly uniting the fact that the government is just a coordinator, collecting taxes and using it to buy lunches for kids.

"4% tax on millionaires pays for breakfasts and lunches for all school children" unlike the above example, is a sentence that reminds people that taxes are what provides these many positive social benefits they recieve, not "the government", not "for free", and that taxes aren't always "bad".

Or maybe I'm projecting!

they have the shape of a frog with an image of a 7-color rainbow

That's not even an LGBTQ+ symbol in any way. Apparently even nature is too woke now. Fucking bigots have lost their damn minds.

I don't agree with either of those.

An appeal to a higher court has to be accepted. You can/should be able to appeal because of procedural issues or new evidence. If you have neither, your appeal won't be granted. This by itself stops endless appeals.

A justice system that says "sure, you can prove he's innocent NOW, but AT THE TIME we made the right call so he should continue his punishment" isn't a justice system at all.

The fact that a politician can override the justice system isn't a solution, it's at best problematic on its own. If the politician's pardon is based on some just ideal (law is too harsh, punishment is too harsh, former criminal is reformed) then why don't they make it law? If it's not just then the pardon is unjust by definition.

Hmmm they're blocking parking on the street and suing to stop making the parking lot bigger than 8 cars. Tell me again how that isn't "rich fucks trying to stop people from accessing the public hot spring"

In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park

I'm not here to tell you what to do but most regular consumer grade helmets I've seen would be hard to spray the outside without hitting the foam especially near the vents... Foam which, once again, melts INSTANTLY when spray painted. Foam which is also basically the whole protective value of the helmet.

Anyways I'm sure there are helmets where it's possible to spray paint without damaging the foam. Or you could do a good job taping. Or you could shrug at the hopefully minor foam damage. Many helmets never have to protect your head so you might be lucky there too. All I'm saying is that there are good reasons to say "don't spray paint helmets" as general good advice.

LMAO all your sources are YouTube videos but you're trying to act like you're making a serious science backed argument!!

"I'm not one of the crazies guys, sure I'm arguing for the same stuff, but I watched the REAL research videos, you have to believe me"