This, but also teachers. Having a child doesn't give you special insight that outweighs the experience of people who have extensive training and often advanced degrees.
07.03.2026 10:31
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
This, but also teachers. Having a child doesn't give you special insight that outweighs the experience of people who have extensive training and often advanced degrees.
*nods sagely* Chaotic Mewtral
Inside you is 2 wolves
Inside me is 3 wolves
More Wolves = Better Than
So where are the strong? And who are the trusted?
A Noem is what I call it when a dude tries to read me poetry and I have to shut him down
I can finally prove once and for all that I would make better choices for the king and not somehow subject myself to identity theft. Asha Sharma FTW
Don't feel bad, you're just as indescribable to Cthulhu as he is to you.
When Tsathoggua asked him what the deal with humans is, he was heard to remark "I don't know, they're just like these weird little guys"
We should never have tolerated autofill, that was a major domino. Don't presume you know my mind you silicon dipshit
An annoying amount of my day now is spent muttering at computers "Okay, but I didn't ask you to do that".
I don't want applications to guess at what I'm trying to do, I want them to do what I fucking tell them to do. It was bad enough when it was just Word, now all apps are real go-getters.
I always suspected that guy had a dark side
Be the change you wish to lose in the couch
I'll always regret that I was too young to appreciate when Halley's Comet last came around and I likely won't live to see it return, but I got to see Addams Family Values in the theater so overall my life is a wash
And to be sure, it's not an unheard of position to be in for final Jeopardy, what IS unheard of is writing down "I hope they both bet everything" as her final response. A funny boss move that completely paid off in every way.
Not slow at all, you got it in one. She couldn't bet enough to beat them from her current position if one had an advantage so the only for way to win was ensure they were exactly tied so they were then forced to bet everything and then hope they both get it wrong. They did and she ended up winning.
Every Phil Collins song is actually about how he didn't intervene to save someone's life, people are just really bad at understanding subtext and drums
If you watch closely on the last clue that would tie it up, she clearly knows the answer but looks to the guy who needed it and when he got it right she did a little fist pump. One of the funniest series of events I've seen on Jeopardy
While I don't disbelieve it, is there a source or reasoning for this? I'd like to be able to pass it along but a screenshot of a Twitter account isn't particularly rigorous vetting.
Parvati Holcomb, the engineer companion character from The Outer Worlds A woman wearing engineering goggles and a high collared shirt under a functional coat, with a speech bubble positioned above her as though she is saying the post this is in response to
And one other thing
Weird, that's what Sarah said
Wait so it's not nearly 274 years? There's a time and place to be facetious and this sir is not that
Oh no, I'm Moby. You must be thinking of my brother, Mark Dick.
Hitchbot mentioned, compelled to post this link, it's automatic to me call me postbot if you want
deadspin.com/hitchbot-was...
It's difficult to argue the counterfactual of cases that haven't been brought due to the precedent set by Barrett v Rosenthal, but it what it is.
Regardless, I run the risk of repeating myself and people much smarter than myself, so I will likely have to leave it there. I hope you hear more views!
Notwithstanding that cable news and interactive websites are different animals that require radically different approaches, 230 only protects against lawsuits for speech someone didn't actually make.
Same as it does for you and me.
I'm not sure how else to make this baby and bathwater point.
That's not a letter
I mean, yes. I think it's a good thing that people and groups can't be found liable for speech other people make, regardless of whether that's you or me or Meta.
It sounds kind of like you're advocating for 230, just not for entities engaging in (protected) speech you dislike. Is that reductionist?
If your primary animus is driven by some who advocate for it, thats a self-terminating argument.
Can you explain what specific issues you take with it given the current reality and not a hypothetical ideal future state?
Those may be possible to address and discuss, unlike a somewhat vague ill ease
Like I said, it's totally fair. I think the challenge here is that you haven't really articulated a specific issue that isn't already addressed or that is specific to 230.
The current political discussion isnt 230 vs something better but 230 or nothing.
Sometimes even the worst people can be right
Fair enough! I do suspect that would be the case regardless how the info was delivered, though. Have fun :)