I’m more irritated that so many people use his disability as an “excuse.” If he were the most average, neurotypical boy in the world, it would still be perfectly normal and acceptable to get excited and emotional about his father potentially being the next vice president.
Overconfident is an understatement. I remember people thinking that Trump was the end of the Republican party, some people actually said that the party would be forced to disband after their crushing defeat in 2016.
Even many Democrats didn’t like Hillary, but the idea of Trump winning was outright laughable to many. I think that combination of “I don’t want to vote for her” and “there’s no way she can lose” left a lot of people at home twiddling their thumbs instead of going out to vote.
I’m not a lawyer or politician but this sounds brilliant to me. If the company is responsible for paying taxes for any received tips, without being able to garnish the tips to pay it, then you’re effectively putting more money in the hands of the staff but also making accepting tips over paying workers less practical. I love it.
They don’t think kids should be fed if their parents can’t afford it. They literally would rather children go hungry than have a functioning government that works for its people.
Y’all really surprised they aren’t fans of giving out tampons?
Look, I’m basically a communist most of the time, but I don’t think this is a good take. I’ll admit I don’t actually know the numbers but I know air travel is expensive and not great for the planet.
It could be better, sure, but I would argue that cramming people in and offering the barest of amenities is a good thing when it comes to air travel. Yes, it sucks to be in a plane but it sucks to pollute the air too. It’s good that more people have more travel options now, and it’s good that we can get more people to more places with less fuel than ever before. We shouldn’t bitch about that, we should accept it as a necessity for getting what we want: to arrive someplace far away in an amazingly short period of time, allowing us to see more of the planet than any of our ancestors, while minimizing the harm as much as we can.
I feel like there’s only a handful of people in the world who can “punch down” at a US senator currently running for vice president. I don’t think any of them are hanging out in Lemmy.
Beaches are tougher but I believe there’s a nudist resort in every state in the US. You can visit the AANR website and find the closest one. If it’s a “family resort” that means it’s probably very welcoming, if a little boring depending on location.
They already remade Little Mermaid too recently. Terry Crews as Rapunzel, though, is still on the table.
My fear is them going public or selling. If that happens, it’ll probably be Microsoft willing to spend any amount, and the government hasn’t really been in a “preventing monopolies” mood for a while now.
And then interrupting that hold music at seemingly random intervals to tell you that they care about you, or to tell you that you could do this faster on their website.
I had to call Assurant recently because their website literally threw an error and told me to call in and wouldn’t let me proceed. I was told by the automated messages no less than 4 unstoppable times that the website is faster, and then after explaining the situation to the person she told me that the website is faster.
She was clearly reading the script and it’s not her fault so I kept quiet, but I have rarely felt such extreme rage in my life.
I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of “harm.” There’s also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is “harm.”
See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?
At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it’s imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that’s one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don’t think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there’s simply no way to protect people equally.
I don’t know what your particular situation is but if you’re just using it on computers you could use LUKS or BitLocker or FileVault. Then if you want to wipe it, you only need to destroy the key and the data is rendered effectively gone.
And that’s becoming it’s own problem with search, especially with technical questions. The good answer is also old and out of date.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One result affirms that you should feel safe and provides a hotline, the other starts with outright victim-blaming. The second result under “Maybe it’s your fault for not listening?” is not a hotline, at least for me.
My point is that if they just made the result the same then it would not detract from women, nor would it hurt the men who don’t need the advice. You’re going out of your way to defend an unnecessary bias by claiming it’s more relevant, but that’s not the point. They could choose to just not have the bias, and it would be a win while hurting no one.
The true mildly infuriating is the comments. Whether this is rage bait or not, we should all be about to agree on some basic things:
Domestic violence sucks regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrator is.
Helping one group of victims, like males, does not have to and should not take away from helping another group.
The number of victims should not be the deciding factor on whether victims deserve empathy and support.
People in here are going out of their way to defend what is clearly a biased oversight, treating women like an automatic victim and treating men like an automatic perpetrator. Why? Just acknowledge that it’s dumb, shows bias, and move on.
Since they’re underage, the mother would have the authority to make medical decisions on their behalf. If she decides that they wouldn’t want to be kept alive by machines like an industrial freezer, surely that’s her choice, right?
I’m not a lawyer but I’d love to see how something like this pans out. It feels like another one of those situations where an idiot makes a sweeping ruling that doesn’t consider the many many ways it affects society.
I use Photoprism. It is sufficient, amazing even for what it is, but there’s a definite curve to getting it set up properly and there’s some babysitting involved to make sure everything keeps working.
The truly wild thing about subscription pricing to me is how viscerally I’m against it. I’m not shitting on this business model, I think it makes perfect sense and is probably the only logical way to run a business like this. I’m just saying that everything in our lives is trying so hard to turn everything into a recurring fee that my first reaction to every recurring fee is pure hatred.
Alright, so the amount of data I’d need for pictures is probably the 500GB tier, so $9.99/mo. My first thought is that’s way too expensive, my second thought is that I’m not doing another subscription. My subscription-trauma addled brain will happily justify buying a little server, and a 1TB hard drive, and spending hours configuring them. By the time I’m done, I’ll have spent the equivalent of at least 3 years of the cost of this service, plus tons of my free time, and it will never work exactly right because there’s always going to need to be updates, and sometimes those will break something, and I’ll need to fix it myself.
Anyway, it looks cool though.
Please don’t say Trump is in decline. Plenty of people thought Trump had no chance of winning in 2016. He is a serious threat and should be treated like one until at least 10 years after his death.