aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him) @ aberrate_junior_beatnik @midwest.social

Posts

2

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

Trailer Queen

Can we not? Why take a dig at poor people to make fun of a rich person?

It's unclear to me how they even could save taxpayers anything. It's not like when they fire a government employee, the money shows up in people's tax returns. I suppose they could fire the entire IRS so you just don't have to pay taxes at all, but then I guess you aren't a "taxpayer", and thus not worthy of consideration.

I feel much better now that I'm reminded of my insignificance, ty

https://massgrave.dev/ works just fine with ltsc as well and https://www.pcrf.net/ can always use more money

Those were decisions to change the specific names of specific places, not a decision to handle country names in the general way OP was describing.

why did they decide

Nobody sat down and made a decision to handle country names the way we do. It organically happened the way it did for no particular reason other than it works well enough.

why don’t we change everything back to how the countries’ place names are pronounced by their citizens out of respect

Nobody cares enough to undertake this. I don't particularly care that people call the US by different names in their languages. People in Turkey aren't asking us to pronounce their country's name the same way they do. Most people are happy to apply the inverse golden rule on this, i.e., I don't pronounce your country's name the way you do, so I'm not going to expect you to pronounce my country's name the way I do.

Would it make things harder or would it allow us to grow?

Yes, but I think it would be a lot of work for not much growth. You don't learn a lot about a place by just pronouncing its name differently.

I do think there will have to be some cutting back, but it provides capitalists with the ability to discipline labor and absolve themselves (I would never do such a thing, it was the AI what did it!) which might they might consider worth the expense.

It's very funny to take this tack when you are basically claiming to be the smartest person in the country, the only one to see the plain truth of the situation

I can't think of Reagan's shooter's name, either. That isn't proof it was staged.

Love that straight up QAnon level shit is getting the majority of upvotes here. Good sign, the future is bright

I mean, they are doing their job. It's just that their job is to keep the left down, not to win.

This is a very econ 101 take. A similar argument is that if you increase the minimum wage, people will per se lose their jobs because of supply and demand curves. But the empirical evidence doesn't support that. I don't think we know for sure why, but increasing the minimum wage has second order effects that seem to counteract this. Similarly, it's true that if you print money, you increase the supply of money which according to supply and demand means the money will be worth less. Now I don't think we have as clear empirical evidence that shows this isn't true, but we do print money all the time. I mean, that's how government works; congress passes a bill, and the federal reserve supplies ("prints") the money to fund it. There's not some bank account somewhere that has to have the money and if it doesn't we have an overdraft situation. But, if the bill is printing money to support farmers and provides an increase in the food supply, the cost of food relative to the dollar could go down. Now maybe the cost of other things goes up, but the point is that it's much more complex than "government print money, inflation go up."

The argument I'm making here is based on Modern Monetary Theory (maybe I'm doing a bad job of representing it or understanding it), which you should definitely check out if you haven't.

Before the cuts, the IRS generated $0. After the cuts, the IRS will generate $0. Getting rid of the IRS can't cost the US government any amount of US dollars because the US government has infinite US dollars.

To be clear, I think it's a bad idea to cut the IRS. We should be beefing it up and tasking it with going after the rich, because taking money away from rich people is a good thing. But buying into the framing that the US needs to take money from people because it can then spend that money on something else is a mistake, and not just because it's false. It's bad politics. Conservatives don't actually give a shit about government efficiency or fiscal responsibility, they just hate taxes. If it makes the deficit 10x worse they still want to cut taxes however they can. But they are happy to weaponize concern trolling about the debt and deficit to cut government programs that benefit the poor (or prevent such from coming into existence), and liberals are very susceptible to these arguments.

Not sure what bread or chocolate chips you are eating, but this isn't even remotely true

"have to" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here

I agree with you as long as we also don't end up boiling the oceans to get a mediocre picture of Luigi snacking on peanuts or whatever

How did the breaker not trip on that? It had one job

no u

Not quite the same thing, but there's a project that lets you use TPM to protect your host keys: https://github.com/Foxboron/ssh-tpm-agent

[edit: its primary function is to work with clients but buried in the readme it also explains how to use it for host keys]

Your karyotype doesn't determine what kind of gamete you produce.

See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

AFAIK we don't have any way to determine this before sex differentiation actually occurs. When sex differentiation occurs it happens as a response to hormones, not karyotype. It's possible that environment could be the determining factor, as is the case with freemartins.

So no, it's not an exaggeration nor embarrassing to say that nobody meets the order's definition of male or female.

Telegram isn't encrypted end-to-end by default; apparently if you do encrypt e2e you can't access chats from multiple devices.

Signal's protocol is widely understood to be the gold standard for security, which is one reason it's been adopted for multiple messengers. Telegram has a bespoke protocol which is not as well regarded.