What if we
At the department of
What if we
At the department of
Generate a reply to a fediverse comment. The comment expresses agreement and laments the rise of this soulless and parodic facsimile of creativity which furthers the social and economic devaluation of a profession whose practitioners are already frequently characterized as “starving”. Amiable yet embittered tone, melancholic tone, eloquent but a little overwrought, high quality, faded colors, style of Greg Rutkowski.
The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.”
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door.
“I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
— Ubik
It’s a mock search engine results page.
Click on the link with the text “then it shows me something” to continue.
Are you thinking of Samus from the Serious Sam games?
Then the question still applies: in what way would a spoiler increase the count of either establishment candidate? My understanding of basic math is that it cannot.
Correct, and to claim otherwise would be absurd. Have I done that? The absolute count of votes is immaterial. Elections are decided by the proportion of votes cast for each candidate. That’s what admits the spoiler effect. Thanks, FPTP.
That’s certainly one opinion on the matter… coincidentally one perfectly aligned with a partisan propaganda viewpoint and, thus far, is nothing but alarmist hyperbole.
It’s no coincidence. This is the means by which the establishment perpetuates itself. Doesn’t mean both parties are the same.
I’m tapping out after this, but I appreciated the discussion. Have a great weekend.
Does voting third party or abstaining somehow increase the count of votes for Republicans?
No, I’m only describing the spoiler effect here.
Would this be more or less irrational than actively perpetuating the problems with a party and its candidates by guaranteeing them your vote for no reason other than they’re not as bad as a different party?
It would be more irrational, because if the “shoot me in the leg, I guess” party loses, everyone dies, and nobody gets to have opinions about anything ever again.
I think we can both agree that voting to avoid bad outcomes rather than to select good ones is fucked.
Of course, one has the freedom to cast their vote, or not, as they like. But I can’t fathom why someone would “choose” an impossible outcome that ultimately makes the fatal scenario more likely instead of moving the needle toward the survivable one. It strikes me as irrational, which I could ignore if it were mere self-sabotage, but this affects others too.
You have misunderstood the metaphor. (edit: Rather, the people you’re describing have.)
You cannot opt out. Someone will take the office.
This comment is a joke and you wouldn’t want to do it like that in reality, but here are some related keywords you could look up: “Unix cat”, “Unix pipeline”, “grep”, “output redirection”, “command substitution”.
The FTC issued a nationwide ban on noncompete agreements on April 23.