snooggums

The fact that people know there are pre-compiled blobs in open source means they have an informed reason to avoid the software!

You guys are having conversations where someone gets to the point at the beginning?

I usually get a meandering barely tangential story that is supposed to be context but is irrelevant and gets in the way of communicating their simple point.

"snooggums, are you able to take off work tomorrow? I was walking the dog and ran into Cindy. You know Cindy, Bob's daughter? She went to Kansas State and majored in chemistry, but was never that into it. Anyway, so Cindy was talking about how they painted their house last year and the contractor wasn't someone you would want to work with because when she talked to them he said that he wasn't sure that the work was going well and he wanted to follow up to discuss the work with him. But then he said that it was ok and it all worked out. On the way back the dog had a limp, can you take her to the vet?"

Sorry, you have to picture a similar meandering explanation for something as that whole story has filled my brain for the morning.

If they didn't interrupt you would still be having two conversations since they misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it would take longer to catch on.

Clearly he was shot by the knife!

Narrator: He did not start to get a damn clue.

Name checks out...

Unless you’re willing to declare some objective standard for what everyone considers an ‘official Democrat’…

Registering as a Democrat makes someone an "official Democrat" since registering makes it official.

Negative Ghostrider, doggo comes first!

Yeah, leading with the important part so the reat of it has context seems to work a lot better for a lot more people in my experience. Especially in your example where you are trying to front load the thing to do followed by the thing not to do. That way they don't jump to speculation halfway through the sentence :)

On a somewhat nonscientifically aupported personal observation, if the sentence structure has a 'but' in the middle the audience is very likely to start mentally guessing what is coming up and will have more trouble listening to what it being said. It can often sound like a rug pulling moment, where what they thought was true is suddenly switched up and most people don't like that. So if thinking ahead it is better to reverse a sentence like in that example to avoid the middle 'but'.

When you stack SCOTUS they just let you do it.

Wink, wink, straight arm raised salute awkwardly transitioned into a waving motion

Trump heard 'Nicky' and assumed it was a woman. No additional complexity or nuance is needed.

For example, one time I was talking about how my sister and her family/household travel often, saying, “Those people travel a lot,” and the person repeated those people and gave a slight laugh. I’m wondering if I may be giving some sort of unintentional implied message when I use that word.

I joke around friends who accidentally phrase things in ways that could sound like bigotry/racism if taken out of context, and it sounds like that it what the person was laughing about.

'Those people', when used while judging or looking down on somebody is a common way for bigots and racists to avoid using slurs around non-bigots/racists. Something like "The park was a lot more fun before those people showed up." while nodding in the direction of some people with darker skin. Or saying that 'those people' are doing something unacceptable.

It isn't a people vs persons thing, it is specifically the phrase 'those people'.

Incels are defined by how they think, not what they are.

"We need less decisive rhetoric" said the only party that is using decisive rhetoric.

A big part of where she excelled in votes was because she spent too much time in safe states and didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in the states that ended up being decided on thin margins.

They are also against contraception, because they are pro forced birth.

They are pro forced birth. They don't care about infants, children, or adults.

I nominate beigepilled.

They have a concept of a birth.

Leeloo Dallas Multipass!

So blackpilled = incelpilled?

I am adding this disclaimer due to repeated questions about the genuine authenticity of Popsie Funk and his music.

I don’t think that the artist in question is faking this.

All that being said, while this particular case isn’t, I suppose one could imagine such a “trying to pretend to be human” artist existing.

They were pretending, and added the disclaimer because people bugged them about it. They still worded the disclaimer as if Popsie Funk was a real person (his music).

Are we maintaining computers?

I haven't had to do anything beyond installing the OS after a hardware update or installing software for over a decade. Yeah, I'm lazy and using Windows, but my last hardware was used for about 7 years without needing any troubleshootijg and I upgraded a few years ago to keep up with modern games.

I guess I clean the filter sometimes.

The internet will never be useless. There will always be a large number of sites that are not capitalist hellholes that only exist to steal user's data or scam users or do other malicious things. This may be down to things like credit unions, federated social media, and non-profits that exist to make the world better, but there will always be something that is out there that keeps it from being useless.

We are well past the tipping point of malicious websites being indistinguishable from legit sites unless tou pay attention to extra informatjon like the address bar. I would say that most of the websites I used to enjoy have gone to shit between ads and ditching their better writers for cheaper staff or AI. Most of the internet is crap.

But there is stilll enough helpful content that the whoe thing isn't worthless and I doubt it ever will be.

Term limits won't help with systemic corruption, because replacing corrupt judges with new corrupt judges would be the natural response.

Enshrining impeachment as a regular and viable strategy for actual corruption would be.

The only reason that this is unpopular is that there are a lot of things that happened to the web that are far better than some overhyped group text vomiting website going downhill.

"Procedures were followed and it doesn't matter if the evidence used to convict was reliable." is the opposite of justice.

And that is before this gem:

Hilton also rejected Williams and Bell’s other claims, including that Williams’s previous attorneys were ineffective in representing him at trial, and that Larner had struck people from the pool of potential jurors on Williams’s case because they were Black, which is unconstitutional. During the hearing, Jonathan Potts, who is working with Williams’s attorneys at the Midwest Innocence Project, pressed Larner about his stated decision to strike one potential juror because the man “looked very similar” to Williams. Larner said that what he meant was that they looked like “brothers,” he said. “Like familial brothers, not like Black people.”

Lamer would be able to know if they were related, so the only reason for excluding the juror is racism.

The case has already achieved a “deterrence effect” to discourage similar crimes, Warner said in the hearing in Denver.

While I doubt it had any deterrance effect in the first place, shortening his time in jail so soon would indermine any possible deterrence effect.

The point of the article isn’t that AI is outright useless as a coding tool but that it lulls programmers into a false sense of security regarding the quality and security of their code.

Lulling them into a false sense of security is half of what makes it useless. The fact that it makes shitty code is the other half.

Well, he was an actor. That helps with popularity in a setting where appearances are generally more important than substance

Facebook proved that people are just as shitty when their identity is voluntarily public.

Yeah, the South Park episode was based on a true story.

“Those people” can be a racist or classist dog whistle, but isn’t always, and also there isn’t really an alternative.

The vast majority of the time 'they' or 'them' works in the same sentence as 'those people' when refering a goup since you already need context for who you are referring to. I can't even think of an example where they or them doesn't fit.

Description of a group of white people from Georgia.

• I heard they like fried chicken.

• I heard those people like fried chicken.

Hell, the second one sounds racist even after making it clear I was talking about white people, and I typed the words!

Stupid derisive autocorrect!

I blame autocorrect.

Baseball cap this morning.

Hats help with avoiding sunburn on my bald head, and I usually wear ball caps because they are small and easy to tuck away when not needed into a bag, backpack, or other small storage spaces.

Adding “those” in front also alienates them further. So by saying “those people”, you are distancing yourself from them, despite them being your family.

Great observation!

If only there was some kind of pattern!