mcpackieh

The problem is "be more like the Japanese" isn't actionable advice. Americans don't have uniform values; most Americans are already respectful neighbors (yes, even the "freedom loving" ones) so telling them to be more like the Japanese is pointless because they aren't the problem. The problem is the small portion of Americans who are deliberately antisocial. If even 10% of Americans are antisocial neighbors, then 100 Americans moving into your neighborhood will mean you have 10 awful people making the neighborhood hell.

And what can the quiet 90% do about it? Socially pressure the anti-social people? This provokes even more disruption in retaliation and stands a non-negligible chance of getting you stabbed. Calling the police with noise complaints is ineffectual, as soon as the police leave the disruption will become even worse just to spite everybody else. NIMBYism is the most proximate and pragmatic solution; stop the problem from occurring in the first place.

I have no idea how you could read spacebacon's comment and conclude that he believes damn near half a meter of plywood would be insufficient to stop a 9mm bullet. That's so absurd it should have stopped you in your tracks and had you reevaluate what it was spacebacon was saying. How can you seriously believe he was claiming to have experience shooting at half a meter of plywood? The very premise is absurd.

Either spacebacon is completely insane, or he was talking about nilered's video. You chose the 'he's insane' interpretation. I say you're obviously wrong.

Product review sites seem like the perfect case for contextual advertising; no user tracking necessary at all.

Why should the EU limit itself to regulating personalization around healthcare matters instead of regulating all personalization generally?

The "whole category of business" doesn't have a right to exist, and the EU has the right to regulate it out of existence. And why shouldn't they? Because it would be bad for your employer or your stock portfolio?

If advertising isn't actually necessary and has nothing to do with people buying the product, then companies and their sycophants shouldn't whine and scream in terror whenever somebody suggests that advertising be banned.

> The strongest decider in the outcome of the 2016 election is that the Trump campaign spent something like a factor of three more on advertising across the board than the Clinton campaign.

Can you cite your campaign spending numbers? Wikipedia says the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... I'm searching for a source that says what you claim and can't find any: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+campaign+advertising+o... https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+outspent+hillary https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+advertising+spending+v... https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+spent+less+than+trum...

Is my google-fu shit? Maybe. Regardless...

> The Democratic party as a whole believed Trump to be so unelectable that they pulled money from the presidential campaign

The root cause was their arrogance. Hillary was barely campaigning at all. It would not have cost her much anything to call into the major news channels every day^ but instead Hillary was effectively incommunicado for much of 2016. It's as if she thought campaigning was beneath her.

Also, I don't know how you can break apart Americans disliking women in general and Americans disliking Hillary particularly. She personally has been a popular target for derision for more than 20 years before her 2016 campaign. The DNC may have considered Trump unelectable but they were burying their heads in the sand w.r.t. Hillary's own unelectability problem. Which goes back to the arrogance thing..

At least they've figured it out now. Nobody seriously talked about her for 2020 and nobody is seriously suggesting her for 2024.

^ Most of Trump's 'advertising' was given to him for free in this manner, maybe you're assigning some arbitrary dollar value to this news coverage to say he spent more?

1. "AI" doesn't have rights, let alone human rights.

2. The ad didn't feature images of a person that looked like her, it featured actual images of her that were manipulated to shill the product. This obviously isn't legal. You can't just cut out a picture of Tom Hanks and put him in your ad with a speech bubble saying "buy this product", what was done here is no different from that.

When you say "his process", you're talking about nilered's process right?

Spacebacon said:

> From my experience shooting plywood, the 9mm would have no problem going through the same thickness. He is legitimately on to something with his process.

He's obviously talking about nilered's result. I have no idea what you people are on about with 45cm, 45cm of anything besides styrofoam will stop a bullet.

Nilered didn't use 45 centimeters of densified wood, he used maybe four centimeters of it.

What are anybody in this thread on about with 45 centimeters? He stopped a 9mm with about four cenitmeters. Skip to 53:00

> Generally, cadmium primarily gets into chocolate pre-harvest as the cacao plant pulls it up from the soil, while lead is a post-harvest contaminant, primarily from handling of wet beans, such as from dust and soil that gets on the cacao beans as they are dried outdoors.

> Simply improving manufacturing processes—removing contaminants during processing and cleaning—can easily reduce lead levels, and some companies are doing a relatively better job at this than others.

> But cadmium is a little more difficult. The metal is naturally found in volcanic soil and can spread into agricultural areas via mining, phosphate fertilizers, and municipal sludge. High cadmium levels are almost exclusively found in cacao beans grown in South America, with beans grown in West Africa showing little contamination.

As much as I don't want cadmium in my cadbury, if it's coming from volcanic soil and not from negligent processing, then for some reason I find myself not caring as much. They should address the mining run-off issue though.

> over 10,000 Pennsylvanian school employees reported suspected child abuse to the state in 2022 alone

And they overlook 100x more students beating the shit out of each other. No, I won't cite it. I lived it, and I have relatives working in that system who say nothing has changed.

BTW there are more than 100k school teachers in Pennsylvania. 10k reports a year represents about 1 in 10 teachers making a single report a year. I retract my 100x remark, it's far worse than that.

Didn't most people here start that way? Maybe I'm just projecting, but I assume that most people in this industry got into programming on their own without any adult introducing it to them.

It remains common practice for nature "documentaries" to create fake narratives in editing. Pay attention to cuts, camera angles and changes in background scenery and you'll notice quite a lot of it. If they're showing two animals in some sort of confrontation but only ever show one of the animals at a time, you can be sure it's fake. If they're showing something that has several camera angles it's probably fake, particularly if some of the camera angles are very close or in a position that should make the cameraman visible in the other angles.

That popular video of a lizard running through a gauntlet of snakes is very fake. They probably spliced together many days of footage using captured lizards and snakes.

Those same Pennsylvanian school teachers turn a blind eye to the abuse that happens right in front of them in their own classrooms. The law may require them to report abuse but it can't actually force them to; the teachers just pretend they didn't see anything and there is no penalty for this because how can you prove the teacher recognized something? It's a farce.

Eat your hat.

It was religious adherents who dispensed with that 'duty', not atheist reformers. Jesus himself said that you should not cast stones unless you are without sin (nobody is, therefore nobody may cast stones.) Jesus brought this and other reforms to the jewish religion and was murdered for it.

> And I've never met a homeschooled kid who didn't seem weird. And by weird, I mean able to easily discuss complex topics with adults, showing not only competent conversation skills, but broad knowledge of the world and how it works.

It goes beyond knowledge. I went to public school but one of my better friends was homeschooled. We knew each other because we participated on the same sports team and consequently saw each other six days a week for most of the year. He was always odd and I knew it, but only some years later did I figure out what was odd about him: He was two years older than me but he always treated me like an equal. He lacked the biases against people of a different ages that were normal in public school attendees. Most older kids (the rest all public school attendees) wouldn't necessarily bully the younger kids, but at best treated them distantly with mild to substantial condescension.

I was the same way, almost all of my friends were the same age as me but kids even one year younger were in some way "little kids" to me, even though some of them were physically larger, faster, and sometimes smarter too. What difference does one or two years make? Now that I'm an adult, I can clearly see that a few years of difference is no difference at all. My homeschooled friend had that figured out years before anybody else.

> They generally aren't brainwashed to kill people.

Lmao, yes they are. You couldn't be more wrong, kids who attend public school make better military recruits. Public schools teach kids how to conform to institutional systems and follow orders. These are essential skills for effective killers.

Btw, since you're so scared of kids learning how to build rockets.. I learned how to build rockets in public school through a program called TARC. The same design principles I learned for model rockets could be applied to homemade weaponized rockets. Does that frighten you? Do you think that makes me Hamas or something? (Hamas is who you're thinking of right? America doesn't have a domestic rocket attack problem, I'm sure you know that.) You should know that most people in the MIC went through public school. If you're actually afraid of people learning these sort of skills, shouldn't you be advocating for kids receiving a bible-only education that renders them incapable of engineering, and therefore weapon design, and unfit for military recruitment?

Human sacrifice is an interesting example, since there are several public school proponents throughout this discussion arguing that good parents have an obligation to send their bad schools to thereby improve the quality of those schools for the other children. This amounts to human sacrifice.

Giving a bad teacher more money won't make them a better teacher. Maybe you can argue that offering more money to teachers will draw in qualified people from other professions, but this kind of solution can't be implemented in a vacuum. The bad teachers are already in the schools and cannot easily be fired because they're protected by politically powerful unions and furthermore, protected by a substantial portion of the public who hold school teachers on a pedestal and will resist any political move to make it easier to fire bad teachers.

Public schools teach you all the wrong ways to deal with bullies, and forbid the correct ways. They teach kids to run to teachers for help whenever they get bullied; in the real world that doesn't work because there's no teacher to run to. And when a kid stands up to a bully themselves, the school punishes him for exercising precisely the skills he'll need later in life. Schools don't teach kids how to deal with bullies, they teach kids how to be docile victims.

I'm not pretending anything, jackass. Russian and Chinese state media is not blocked in America. I can read any of it whenever I want.

Sending your child to a bad school in the hopes of improving that school with your child is clear cut child abuse.

> EU, lawmakers there began with a presumption of basic good faith on the part of business

Are you telling me that EU lawmakers were utterly naive to common left wing critiques of capitalism? That beggars belief.

You've missed the point, there is no objective measure of a troll. If you strongly believe A and think nobody could believe B in good faith, and I strongly believe B and think nobody could believe A in good faith, then you are a troll to me and I am a troll to you.

Go on a forum with lots of republicans and argue standard democratic talking points; they'll call you a troll. Do the inverse and they'll call you a troll. People use the label of "troll" against people who are being earnest when they say something the listener strongly disagrees with. It's little more than a generic insult for people you disagree with, like "idiot".

In the example you give, the people calling politicians satanic probably earnestly believe that in many if not most cases. You might think that nobody could have that point of view in good faith, but this is a country with many millions of Christians who earnestly believe all kinds of wacky nonsense. I know Christians who think Halloween is a satanic holiday. They're not trolling, they really do believe that. You say that people who accuse politicians of satanism are trolls because you strongly disagree with what they're saying and you think they don't have a rational reason to believe what they say (which is probably true) but you don't have any evidence that they're misrepresenting their true beliefs to get a rise out of you (which would be "true trolling".) If they really do believe what they say, then they're not trolls. Even if what they believe is totally irrational, that's the way some people are.

If the problem is a small number of people dominating the conversation by leaving 100x more comments than anybody else, then solve that problem by requiring commenters to identify themselves and rate limiting people. This doesn't require you to read their minds to determine their true intent.

No reason such an insurance company couldn't be run in the early/mid 20th century manner, entirely with paper records. Send carbon copies of all documents to two remote locations to eliminate the threat of a fire wiping out the records.

This is easy. It requires you to hire a lot of human clerks, but since the customers are large businesses that means there aren't a whole lot of customers in the first place. And if you can't get enough typewriters, there's no reason the clerk work couldn't be done on computers connected to printers, with all document storage still being done on paper. If the computers get pwned, throw them out and buy new ones; it doesn't matter because the documents weren't being stored on those computers.

If you have many friends that are windows power users, there's a high chance they'll use rar if they ever have files to send you. This may be indicative of their cultural familiarity with the warez scene, but they use it for anything. I've received rars from people of their own music, photos, projects, etc.

I really hope they fix this so I can stop converting cbr files to cbz.