I reported a comment for basically saying that men are the only violent sex, and they temp-banned me for abusing the reporting system. The explanation message (canned, I’m sure) said that abusively reporting people is a form of harassment or bullying, or something like that.
Eat shit reddit, and fuck spez.
edit: Based on my experience and what others are saying, I have to wonder, were they trying to burn it down from the inside?
It seems like that tension between those things (which I’d expect are natural intuitions that many people experience) would be a foundational principle in ethics. Is it? Is that the joke?
Fun fact, though: Linux is the only case-sensitive one.
Edit: I feel silly for forgetting that it’s all about the choice of FS. If anyone needs anything from me, I’ll be in the corner, coloring.
I think you meant to write “anything”, but I have to laugh anf think this could be another internet moment like what started “Karen” or “Chad” or “Stan”.
I think you’re the kind of person I imagine when I wonder how the world would really work if we got to a kind of utopia thing where money didn’t need to exist anymore and everyone just did whatever they wanted. Star Trek portrays one of the captain’s dad as running a restaurant in Louisiana, for example, and I just thought how cool it’d be to have access to so much abundance of resources that you just cook big batches of food for whomever wants some.
But then someone challenged me to think about the other aspects of a restaurant, like serving and cleaning, managing access, etc. So once in a while I wonder about that–what it would take to really make restaurants work (as in, really work as places that celebrate great food) in a world with no money.
Maybe no money just means no need to limit basic resources. Maybe it doesn’t mean no other incentive system, which might just still be money, after all. I don’t know, just something I wonder about in a way to try to better understand economics and the evolution of society.
It seems obvious to me now.
Many US states are now requiring age verification for adult sites. VPN companies will benefit if that requirement expands. The Republican party’s pearl-clutching politics are what can make that happen.
The Swastika in the center of the nose cone was meant as a good luck symbol. (This was well before the Nazi party adopted the Swastika as its official emblem).
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/spinner-nose-cone-spirit-of-st-louis/nasm_A19890217000
(Also the wrong orientation to be the Nazi symbol.)
Edit: I admit I may have missed the point of your post. It just occurred to me I don’t even know about the OP’s cartoon, which I now realize is probably referring to Lucky Lindy himself. Gonna go get my learn on.
This interpretation is valid. But I recently learned to see it a different way.
If you’ll humor me, please consider this. Since Santa knows if you’ve been “bad or good,” he knows the other reindeer have been bullies to poor Rudolph. And, while a red glowing nose is cool, it’s not a useful fog light. It’s just not.
So Santa “uh oh!” had an emergency where, for the first time ever, the fog was going to be too thick all over the world to deliver presents?
Nope, he set up Rudolph in a position to “lead” his peers in a situation that maybe needed a little help but was not, in any way, a true, worldwide magic-assed Santa emergency. Santa knew how to guide his reindeer to accept each other. The story of Rudolph was not about Rudolph doing something to prove himself. It was about recognizing a Rudolph in need and helping him rise to the occasion to bring him closer to his peers in a way that could heal division.
Rudolph isn’t about how to triumph as a Rudolph. It’s about how to be a good Santa.
(Edit: For everyone who already thought this was obvious in the story, thanks for letting this Rudolph have his epiphany anyway.)
The heaviest sentence was given to an adolescent who was formally given a 6-month prison sentence, although he should be able to serve this at home while under electronic surveillance.
Grounded.
There’s one restaurant in my area that has some tables for one. I noticed that, for me, those do feel more complete when I’m dining alone. Instead of extra, conspicuously empty seats around the rest of the table, there’s a table clearly designed for one diner to just enjoy a good meal.
And it’s not enough to have tables with only one chair. If such a table is amidst larger-party tables, I think it still makes the other usual places at the table feel abnormally empty. What makes tables for one feel “right” has something to do with their placement in the restaurant (so as not to feel odd or exceptional), their orientation (so as not to face the diner towards someone else’s gaze–unless mingling is the goal), and then the size and number of seats.
It’s probably difficult for some restaurants to accommodate solo diners due to a need for density, but when a restaurant might have some space that would otherwise not be all that useful (like a little extra space between a planter divider and a walkway, where larger tables just wouldn’t fit), it is an opportunity to attract solo diners who want to enjoy the solo experience of focusing on the meal and their own thoughts rather than bar seating. (And, on that topic, I think it’s becoming more normal for people to not want alcohol displayed prominently in front of them when they’re really just looking for a nice meal.)
Dey took are jarbs!!
I wonder what impact this has. From my perspective, the people who think like this are usually the ones not interested in traveling anywhere past the end of their street.
Every US enemy right now is looking into harnessing the power of flocks of birds.
deleted by creator
Your first post didn’t make any sense to me, either, until you explained it, and now it makes sense, although I’d recommend clarifying as “land animal meat is the opposite goal of fish meat” or something like that.
But yeah, I’d never thought about it that way. Interesting.
If you time it right and if the rushy dweebs don’t block all the lanes, you’ll fly right by them, coasting.
I’m loving the inspiration from everyone here for how I might branch out. I usually get tenderloin fillets, sous vide + cast iron seared. Personally, I like a coffee+cocoa rub based on Smith & Wollensky’s recipe, topped with a small sprinkle of fried onion strings, and sometimes a little bleu cheese. (I might be mixing some things that don’t technically go together, but I enjoy it.)
I think I don’t need sous vide for that cut, but it’s a comforting crutch to know I’m not going to overcook it. Now I want to try the oven and reverse-sear method. If that gets me the same forgiveness without plastic waste, plus with the benefit of a drier surface at searing time, that sounds like a promising upgrade.
… armed militia going from house to house killing men and boys,” …
That’s just on the verge of being pure evil?! What more does it take?
Username checks out.