It made it so I couldn’t play the game, because my computer didn’t meet the spec requirements.

Not saying it was a bad call. My computer was old and shitty, but now I’m out another $900.

I bet Simone Giertz’s Truckla had working windshield wipers…

Front seat? Sure. Back seat? Nah. You have to remove paneling, pull a tab up, then pull a cord forward. That is a three step, non-obvious and non-intuitive way to open a door.

Think of it like a river. If you were getting washed away down a river, would you try to save yourself by swimming up river to where you were? No, you swim to the bank and make your way back from there.

A rip current is just a river in the ocean.

Edit: meant to reply to Not_Rick

It’s the tenets of a religious organization, so public schools should not endorse them specifically.

Interesting read, thank you for that!

It’s the 7 tenets, not ten non-commandments. And they’re really good and honestly better to have in the classroom.

Neither should be in classrooms except in relevant textbooks.

Seriously. He said his defense attorney was inadequate and asked for a different attorney. The judge said you take this one or you decide to represent yourself. And then the defense attorney asked to withdraw.

He never chose to defend himself. He never got the option to continue with his (to his mind) inadequate attorney. They made him defend himself for even questioning if he could get another attorney.

And then instead of explaining or trying to rectify the situation, she just yelled at him and sicced her goons on him.

I read the bill, it’s very short and to the point, and just makes some very small, seemingly uncontraversial additions to the bill. I am curious what possible justification they have for opposing it? That a Democrat sponsored it maybe? Their finger slipped?

Edit: a Republican sponsored it. I understand even less.

Seriously. Like, okay, you think that the whole transgender thing is a fad, or “attention-seeking,” or any other nonsense. Everybody is entitled to opinions, even stupid ones. I guarantee I have some stupid opinions, myself, about things that have no relevance to me.

But feeling the need to express those opinions, and feeling so strongly about it, and wanting to make legislation for it, and pretending you give two shits about girls’ and womens’ sports when 5 years ago you were talking shit about the WNBA because they were a joke to you, when you will knowingly interact with a trans person once or twice in a year, maybe, in your little podunk town, and since you are talking to them you won’t have an opportunity to use a pronoun for them… well there’s obviously something else at work here.

It makes it clear it’s just an excuse to hate, because trans people don’t affect them in the slightest.

So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let’s make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.

It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.

Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.

Also, that it’s worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.

I’m struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It’s not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it’s about killing people just to kill bad people.

Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn’t help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there’d be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.

“United States… Space Corps?”

Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!

Ah, that makes sense. I’m in the military, and we have a similar thing for people who are either due to transfer or retire in the next couple months: FIIGMO. It means “Fuck it, I’ve got my orders.” (For clarification, orders in this context are travel/Primary Change of Station/Retirement Orders, a written and signed document saying they’ll be leaving)

It seems like a weirdly deliberate term for something that has been around forever and typically just attributed to low morale. It makes it seem like a person unhappy at work but just doing their job is somehow sticking it to their boss/company. I’ve dealt with a lot of people like that, both as a peer and a supervisor, and it was never them doing anything intentionally, just being unhappy (and most of the time it had nothing to do with the pay or conditions, just not being suited to the job or general attitude toward life). They could often be a blight on morale, though, so I see how it could be frustrating for supervisors (and peers, they made work miserable for everyone).

I’ve never understood “quiet quitting” as a term. When did just doing your job become something that needs a term? “Working adequately” seems more apt, but I can’t imagine the context that would be worthy of discussion outside an employee review.

Oh, great, so he bought evidence of a crime from the hotel (how are both of sides of that transaction not being prosecuted for obstruction of justice?!), and held onto it long enough to go past the surprisingly short statute of limitations. I guess if you have the money, that’s all you need to do.

That SoL is ridiculous.

Look, this might be a controversial take, but I don’t think Target ever gave a shit about Pride Month, but there were a lot of people who WERE about it so they hyped it and wanted to sell to those people.

It’s like the Superbowl. Does grocery stores give a shit about the Superbowl and who is playing? No, but they’ll stock up on themed shit and make displays and hype it up because it makes money to sell to the people who DO care about it.

Getting mad that Target carries Pride Month stuff is as ridiculous at getting mad that a grocery store is carrying Superbowl stuff when you don’t like football. Who gives a shit? Don’t buy it.

Getting mad that Target doesn’t carry Pride stuff in heavily conservative areas is like getting mad at a grocery store in the UK for not having a big Superbowl display. They don’t have enough people into that, so why would they promote it there?

Does Target have good (or at least not bad) policies regarding LGBTQ+ employees? Do they support LGBTQ+ groups? That’s what matters.

If Pride stuff doesn’t sell in hyper-conservative areas, it makes no sense to offer them there. That isn’t a reflection on LGBTQ+ pride or a position taken about it.

Man, then they’d have a minimum-wage worker to pin it on.

“Boeing whistle-blower found dead in apparent murder-suicide” keeps the Final Destination death list fresh.

There seem to be some similarities between Boeing whistleblowers and the Final Destination movies right now. This guy should go live in a padded cell.

You only get one set of teeth

This is demonstrably false.

Edit: I think some people missed my joke. We all (almost all) have a set of teeth that fall out and another set comes in, so it’s just funny that they used the phrase “you only get one…” like we use for eyes, or brain, when we, in fact, end up having the whole set replaced once in our lives.