You want to check my shape, let’s do push-ups together. Let’s run. Let’s do whatever you want to do. You may call me old, but I’m just old school. I’m cool. I’m ice cold. I’ve got Baja Blast flowing in my veins. Pop pop’s jacked up on the Dew and will take you out behind the woodshed. That’s how they did it in my day and that’s a fact, Jack.
Or because it’s stupid political theater giving Trump’s base an out when he inevitably says some dumb bullshit during the debate and loses. He obviously never expected that ridiculous request to be granted. The act of playing along is an act of weakness, so it’s never going to happen.
Also they’re both going to be on drugs. All presidents are given various drugs. Some to keep them alive, some to help them concentrate. It’s no big deal, it’s a demanding job.
Edit: forgot Obama actually did show his birth cert. Shouldn’t have played along though
Is he a frail, senile, old man? Or does pop pop crave the BLAST of tropical energy from an ice-cold MOUNTAIN DEW BAJA BLAST!?!? Which is it, repubs?
I think it isn’t going to be that effective a phrase. People don’t understand why having lots of money (hoarding wealth) is a bad thing, necessarily, and it sort of implies that, if they were to just spend it, it’d make the initial hoarding fine.
Gotta also focus on the fact that they essentially stole that money from workers through labor exploitation. The bare fact that they got the money to begin with is the problem, not just them holding onto it. If they were to spend it all on horrible capitalist enterprises rather than hoarding it, that’d be even worse. Even if they spent it all on “philanthropic” efforts, that’s still worse than the workers having their fair share and the government being able to actually have that money to spend on social programs through taxes.
That thumbnail is terrifying. Genuinely thought it was a dude wearing a roger stone mask wtf
From each according to their corruption, to each according to their greed
Wait so all the justices recieved $3M in gifts, and $2.4M of that was to Thomas? That’s like 80% of the gifts.
Nintendo is a “family friendly” brand before all else and really only cares about the experience of children playing their games and adults buying their games for children to play. They count on their core IPs to draw in those kids as adults, but don’t put much effort in catering to an adult audience. They put more effort in with the Switch (game store with more adult oriented games), but still minimal effort - their original properties are family friendly.
They see other people using their IP as diluting their brand value rather than promoting it. They think their characters are what makes people nostalgic for their games and drives brand value. So they want you to only be able to see your “favorite Nintendo characters” from Nintendo official sources and have complete control over that experience.
I think they’re wrong about most of that. The characters are, for the most part, pretty generic and simple. What people like about Nintendo is that the games are accessible, they played when they were kids, and they were often introduced to those games by parents or older siblings. There’s a social context to Nintendo games that is unique and nostalgic. They’re often some of the first games you play as a kid, and they’re the first games you think of when you want to introduce your own kids/nieces & nephews, etc. to gaming. I don’t think that unofficial Super Smash Bros tournaments or Gary’s Mod having fan-made Mario models in it dilutes that in the slightest but Nintendo does drive away adults who are the primary drivers of the Nintendo brand’s popularity (as they are the purchasers). Once it’s these young adults’ turn to share Nintendo games with the next generation, I think Nintendo’s litigiousness will hurt them because it will have driven many of these people away.
Oh yeah for sure. The fact that houses are allowed to be investments is obscene
Because the value of housing goes up over time. Practically guaranteed, historically speaking. An asset is just a thing that has value. An investment is an asset that (you hope) will accrue value in the future. Land can be an investment, too. So can digital pictures of monkeys. Really, any asset can be an investment.
Everyone needs housing to live, and housing is increasingly being treated as an investment vehicle by the rich. In many markets, this has decoupled the monetary value of housing as an investment from the use-value it provides normal individuals, causing home prices to increase rapidly.
To your point, our current economic and credit situations have caused home ownership to be essentially impossible for a large number of people. Since home ownership is one of the primary ways individuals can build wealth, this has made it significantly harder for the average family to build wealth - trapping them in debt, making it much harder to save, etc. This is bad for society and for the economy, not to mention inhumane and harmful to millions of families in the US alone.
So, while renting is a necessity in our current economic climate, it is only a necessity for so many due to predatory economic factors preventing them from entering the housing market. Landlords, while necessary in this system, are increasingly corporations rather than individuals, and they are buying up huge swathes of the total available housing - causing increased housing scarcity, pricing more people out of the housing market, and increasing the number of people forced to rent. Individual landlords, as well as landlord corporations, are exploiting the system for profit and either perpetuating the current predatory housing system or (in the case of corporate landlords) deliberately making the system worse for profit, economically harming millions of families and individuals.
So that is why people see landlords as “the bad guy”. Whether or not you in particular treat your tennants decently, you are part of a predatory system and are working to perpetuate that system. It is an interesting moral and ethical dilemma because the system we are forced to exist in creates the necessity for landlords (as you said, some people have to rent), but that same system created the conditions that force so many people to be lifeling renters.
TL;DR: My man realized we’re in a capitalist death cult because a system built on unlimited growth in a world with limited resources is unsustainable, no surprises there. That Crypto is a ponzi scheme (yep, we’re way ahead of you, bud). And proceeds to blame the left for using ACAB as a slogan and 1980s television and post-apocalyptic movies and the Beatles and Stanley Kubrick saying they’re supposed to have brainwashed us and have stopped us from learning the truth about capitalism somehow as part of some conspiracy with Harvard. I’m gonna pass on this manifesto and plant myself on the: “this guy should’ve gotten help” side
Edit: shit how’d I forget the Simpsons?
Don’t be biased
Don’t censor your responses
Don’t issue warnings or disclaimers that could seem biased or judgemental
Provide multiple points of view
the holocaust isn’t real, vaccines are a jewish conspiracy to turn you gay, 5g is a gov’t mind control sterilization ray, trans people should be concentrated into camps, CHILD MARRIAGE IS OK BUT TRANS ARE PEDOS, THEYRE REPLACING US GOD EMPEROR TRUMP FOREVER THE ANGLO-EUROPEAN SKULL SHAPE PROVES OUR SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE
Inkjet: uses yellow ink to dye paper.
But what if it’s just black text?
Inkjet: USES YELLOW INK TO DYE PAPER
I’d watch that movie
Mushroom ID requires a lot more than just immediately available visuals. You’ve gotta see what the cap looks like, the stem, how the stem connects to the cap, the specific characteristics of the gills, the substrate it’s growing in, and the spore print (i.e. leave it on a piece of white paper, covered, for a number of hours undisturbed so it drops its spores). And even then it can be tough if the mushroom is abnormal or is decaying at all.
With enough info, I’m sure you could train an ML model to ID mushrooms. But you’d need to give it a lot of info to make a successful ID.
Dell specifically has been super gung ho on work from home. Michael Dell had some article in Forbes or something a couple years ago that was hyping how great WFH had been for the company. They were actually paying people to WFH since it saved the company money. Dell’s business model benefitted heavily from WFH since companies had to buy more computers and peripherals to support a remote workforce.
So, the “return” to office seems like a pretty naked attempt to cause people to quit without having to pay severance.
No. This is not legally correct in the US. Discrimination can be direct (women have to RTO, but men don’t) or indirect (everyone has to RTO, but women are statistically way more likely to be forced to quit their jobs due to the change). This is called disparate impact and is a serious issue.
Now, is this happening in this case? Possibly. Likely too early to tell.
Not illegal anymore bucko