Skates @ Skates @feddit.nl

Posts

0

Comments

337

Joined

2 yr. ago

To you it's crazy that the person in customer service wants to give you a correct answer without having to worry about mistakingly not carrying a digit and then customers throwing a hissie fit because "well you said 7531 not 8531 and you're a representative of the company so I'm going to pick and choose to pay the lower number rather than what I know I owe, get shit on by your manager for it, I don't care"? Idk man, to me it just sounds like a smart idea - leave no room for error, let the machine be responsible for if you're tired and can't mental math for a second. It even shows you the numbers you added, you can double and triple check the result within seconds, no need to go out and prove you attended elementary school.

Maybe its their instances and those are just the way they are

Russia wants to annex a country. Israel is fighting a terrorist group.

When the opponent is weaker, the honorable thing is to give yourself a handicap.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and insulting and attacking someone, and if you can't tell that there's a difference you can go fuck yourself with a cactus, you cumdrowned dicksphincter.

This has some real "don't be intolerant towards the intolerant" energy.

Yes, sometimes insults are justified. No, when an employee/volunteer helper doesn't share your view is not one of those times. Yes, when you're confronted with a toxic fuck and those defending his toxic behavior is one of those times.

If I were to send you a video of a duck quacking, would you abandon going to the supermarket in the hope that your computer/phone/whatever you watch it on will now be able to lay eggs?

Listen. It was made to look like a duck. It was made to quack like a duck. It is not a duck. It is a painting of a duck, with voice features. It won't fly, it won't lay eggs, it won't feel pain, it won't shit all over the floors. It's not a damn duck, and pretending it is just because it looks like it and it quacks, is like wanting to marry a fleshlight because it's really good at sex and never disagrees with you. Sure, go ahead and do it - but don't goddamn expect it to also give birth to your children and take them to school in the mornings, that's not it's purpose.

Just wait for the iteration of duck that is actually meant to and capable of doing these things. It'll be pretty cool. But this one ain't it.

Not to disparage your reply, because it's well thought out and written, but doesn't it seem to you we're hiding behind legalese?

I want to buy a turkey. I have money. I will visit a farm, pay for the turkey (if the price is agreeable to both parties) and I now own that turkey. I will then do whatever the fuck I want with that turkdy, from raising it as my child, to cooking it for thanksgiving, to cloning it if I have the technology. Sure, I might not be able to return it in some cases. But that's a living fucking thing, and nobody can tell me how to use it.

Now - I want to buy a movie. I have money. I will go to the cinema, but it's not playing anymore. I will look for it on TV, but it's only on one channel, only while I'm at work. I will look for it on the internet and it's available on one website, where I need to make an account and provide quite a lot of information about me. So I make the account and click through their shitty prompts, pay for the movie and now I can only do one thing: stream it?

Excuse you? Who the fuck are you to tell me how I can enjoy my media? What if I want to make a vynil record and listen to it? What if I want to watch it on my old-timey projector? What if I want to burn a frame of the movie onto my morning toast every day for 2000 years? What if I want to put it in a small baggy tied to my balls while I'm fucking the mom of some movie exec, am I supposed to put the entire laptop in the baggy? How the fuck dare you make that distinction for me? Oh, because your site isn't granting me the right to buy a movie, but to buy a license to watch that movie in whichever conditions you decide? Great - here's the thing: I have my own license, which says whenever I pay for something, I use it however the fuck I want, and if you attempt to exert any control over my property or how it is used I will literally stab you and bury you in the woods, because I don't take kindly to corporate fucks who attempt to instruct me how to use the things I've bought. Fuck you, you should've read my license when you took my money.

There is no "license" here, my dude. I don't pay for licenses, regardless of what the website wants to charge for. I pay for a product, or a a service. Let's not hide behind legalese and let's just acknowledge that these are scummy practices to ensure the wealth of corporations at the expense of the rights of consumers. And until these types of shady "licenses" to temporarily view THEIR PROPERTY are smacked into the fucking ground by consumer-friendly laws, piracy is the only way to have justice in a system stacked against you.

Technically couldn't it be argued that the confederacy were the ones that were the real USA? Even the constitution agreed with them that some people are worth less than others.

If you need to change the constitution to have your side be right, you're on the right side of history, but you're not the same country. You're the new guys who took the country by force from the previous guys, because you didn't like how they did things. It's a good thing you did, but let's not pretend like they were the traitors - the winners of the war were the traitors.

I just think it's okay to be a traitor if you're betraying a shitty cause, and by acting like it's not okay, we're just enforcing the "snitches get stitches" and "loyalty instead of morals" mentality. Which I get why you would want to do as a country, because you're trying to keep the power and not raise future traitors to your questionable policies. But I don't get why you'd want to do this as a human, who will be at one point in time responsible for making a similar decision. You're just making it worse for future you if you'll ever need to be labeled as a traitor for, eg: fighting to remove gerrymandering.

To be fair, I don't feel comfortable sharing information with anyone, let alone fucking congress. So I can kinda see their point.

On the other hand, I also don't feel comfortable with the spokesperson not getting raped with a rake. What now, spokesperson? How shall we solve this little dilemma?

Do you think they were busy moaning or?

Opt in?

A Google exec should be shot for any ads longer than 30 seconds.

I was taking a shower once and wanted some music. I started the YouTube app on my phone cause revanced was acting up at the time. It starte off mildly enough, with like 2x15seconds ads, but by the time I was all shampooed one of those huge ads started playing. It didn't stop until I finished my shower. I was seeing red by the time I got out of the shower and turned it off.

I'd hazard a guess that this old quora post that was estimating the average American loses 4.2 years of their life on ads would now result in even more time lost on ads, but let's go with 4.2 years per person. This means that for every 20 people, there's one person's lifetime of ads. "A life for a life" is a fair concept, Google. Start the culling. One Google employee shot for every 20 people that use YouTube. It's the only way to atone.

I thought pans came in many different genders

Your choice to rely on data collected from internet isn't wrong because "there are no women on the internet", or because the sample size is too small. It's wrong because of two things

1. the bias of your sample, which is created by you. You're the only one reading comments, so you're only reading them from certain sources. Whether those sources will constitute a sample that is representative to the rest of the world is debatable
2. People lie on the internet. For example, I am a piranha, and every time I hit a certain region of my tank's glass, autocorrect selects one of the three words suggested, based on the location of my head bonk. Unfortunately so are most of my colleagues in this thread replying to makeup related questions, as well as everywhere else in your online presence. We're all just fish bonking our heads on glass. We'd obviously all love makeup on women, if we understood the concept of women. Your polling sample is unfortunately tainted. But hey, at least you know now that most piranhas like makeup on women.

Oh, so you base your assumption of "most men" off of comments you see on the internet. Ok, nevermind then.

Yup, that's the point I was making as well

So, a few things:

1. No way to prove you're a dude.
2. Post is still not a lie, as your statement followed the post. You can't say that someone in the year 1900 was a liar if they said "no man has walked on the moon".
3. Technically you wrote it, not said it. Therefore your comment is a LIE

Men who go out of their way to evaluate women’s appearances and say they like women with no makeup generally mean they prefer it when women are level ten makeup astronauts who make full face look like “I just woke up this way!”

How do you evaluate that? I'm really asking, cause I've been in long-term relationships, so I've gone to bed next to someone who just removed their makeup and liked their face better without it, so please let me know how you evaluate that "generally" that's what men mean - that they like full face make-up?

k

The English language is great. If your friend was recently kicked out of their house by a Nazi and is arguing with them about it, you can see if things get violent and call out "hey, Nazi debater!" and they will both turn their heads, unsure if you're talking to them or the other guy. Hilarity will ensue from this small confusion, and all will end well.

That having been said, the Nazi will still conveniently forget all their country's history, will declare they are the "pure" or "chosen" ones, and proceed to cleanse the ones that don't fit their world view, including your friend.