jakderrida

Well, defending it is something else entirely. Being sent to a remote outpost in Afghanistan without even a broad objective for any US soldiers being there to complete is only arguably "defending" and quite a poor argument at that. The country, itself, is well defended without me.

I'm only aware Satoshi created Bitcoin and remained anonymous.

It's not exactly divorced from reality. You can synthetically create the very same position. While it sounds like what they're doing is attacking markets and economy, that's just not the case. Unless they made both the options and derivatives markets illegal and also made borrowing and lending stock shares illegal, shorting the security is a position that can easily be created. It was organically discovered at the Amsterdam Stock Exchange within like a couple years after it was founded. The exchange didn't invent it and start offering it either. The traders simply realized that if they could borrow/lend and buy/sell, then they can take an inverse position.

If so, I definitely agree. Actually sounds way more dope as a space shooter, tbh. Like the "ULTIMAte" fighter spaceship. Would also explain why even a novice pilot with an NES controller can still annihilate 100 other ships before going down.

Another thing to consider is that the outcome (which is the one I wanted) resulted in me having them by the balls. I could repeat it to them as retribution in front of other employees with records to back it up and even in front of higher management to demonstrate how grossly incompetent they are.

So, considering a very simple formula could have been so effective, I wondered what they'd find at the library and if even that simple concept would have been available. What wouldn't be available is SEC data. But, as your second suggestion made clear, you could get the information for ratings agencies.

So I searched on Google Books and limited the timeline... What I found were the pretentious ramblings of an old man that thought way too highly of himself for getting lucky at a time that a little luck could make you a fortune to last a lifetime. He wrote a bunch of books on the market. It was like 1910s or something. They were so worthless, but I did find them hilarious to read.

Although, I would be a little upset if they stopped making high-budget binge-worthy series.

Then again... What the hell do I care if it's made by AI? Especially if they use one of those preference-based RLHF and penalize the model against episodes where the series lost all its viewers.

While I don't have IT experience, I can tell you as someone that both worked as an electrician and a FiOs technician that I also assumed that honesty reflects well on people and would be careful not to discourage it. I started at Verizon at like age 20 with that attitude and had no record and seldom anything to hide.

I learned fast that the policy of managers in both companies was, "Encourage narratives that honesty will always result in a better outcome to all employees... And for those stupid enough to believe it, punish them severely because only when they're honest do we know with certainty they're guilty."

First time I was questioned by management at Verizon, I made sure I was ambiguous in a way that made them think I was guilty. They said I was fired immediately and I said, "I'm fired? For what? I wasn't even in the truck. I told you what happened and I told you I was up a pole. The bucket truck was 2 blocks away when I saw it all."

Their faces turned white as they realized that I can tell everyone it's a lie and they can't just dismiss me as disgruntled for getting fired.

Yes, I agree. That's why making it a girl is so hilarious. As to why you're so offended that I find it hilarious, I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's funny for the same reason I'll refer to a hypothetical serial killer as "him" and follow by saying "or her, of course" to females as if I'm pandering. The joke is that they weren't offended to be excluded from being serial killers.

Nah, I actually believe it's the first one. That's why it's so hilarious. The irony is what it insinuates about what happens to women in STEM.

So when they don't make it the headline, it's a conspiracy. When they make it the headline, it's still a conspiracy? At a certain point, we need to accept the fact that you're the one that's hopeless.

Holy crap, it's true. Oh well. Still would have been a thousand times better than Trump.

Why not have the word "no" mean "yes" and "no" while we're at it?

Interesting. What is it?

There we go. The "response" was prescriptivist. The person posting it (me) and yourself are both somewhere in between the two. Now I think you're starting to get it.

Regardless, the original response was a just a joke referring to Stannis Baratheon (from Game of Thrones) saying it. I think some people read it that way. You didn't.

"fewer", not "less".

Wtf is "strong culture"? I guarantee your answer would be different than Tucker Carlson's because he never intended it to be defined. It's just a fake term he made up because, in the heads of his mindless listeners, it invokes the idea that some cultures are superior, but deliberately with no criteria to define it.

Explain why.

Think about it... My fake example takes it to the extreme and portrays it as a serial killer sending a statement to the police department on how excited they are to help them find more of their victims' bodies. Obviously, it's not really a "partnership". Saying it's a partnership is just an attempt by the serial killer to reframe the situation in a way that implies civility and cooperative pursuit of mutual benefit. As if they are being employed by the police department. In reality, they are a serial killer withholding information in hopes of getting a chance at leniency. We are literally saying the same thing.