dogslayeggs @ dogslayeggs @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

1,513

Joined

2 yr. ago

18-29 was 51/47 Harris. 30-44 was 50/47 Harris. 45-64 was 46/52 Trump. 65+ was 47/51 Trump.

So Gen X did vote Trump, but so did Boomers. Gen Y and Gen Z voted Harris.

I'm a military satellite professional with ties to cyber for my programs. China is WAY higher of a threat from a military standpoint. From cyber, it might be equal. I'll trust your word on that.

And even THEN, gold is a shiny, pretty metal that doesn't oxidize like other shiny metals. So the tyrants of the apocalyptic wastelands will STILL want it for jewelry.

I don't think the government should have ANY, regardless of how the government purchased the fake assets. It's a fucking terrible idea for exactly the reason you described. The government should not be involved in such a high risk, unsecured, volatile, ridiculously easily stolen venture.

I freaking loved my Bolt. I was planning to get another before I started construction and needed a truck. Then I was planning to get a Bolt after this truck since I wouldn't need it anymore, but they killed it.

No.

I'm only German by heritage, not citizenry... but goddamn do I love socks-n-'stocks, aka Birck-n-socks.

I know you are just making a joke, but Cybertrucks have way too much actual power. They have between 600 and 850 horsepower and a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds. The problem is they weigh 11,000 pounds, so it's hard to stop or turn them once they get going.

No, the guy was driving a Nissan Pathfinder.

I thought that was North Dakota during the pipeline protests by Native Americans when they were shutting down highways.

Just to be clear to non-Koreans, this is NOT the president who was impeached for declaring Martial Law and locking out Parliament. This is the guy who stepped in that other guy's place as acting president and was impeached for not trying hard enough to stop the declaration of Martial Law.

People are legit afraid of not only losing their jobs but being sued and/or blacklisted from future jobs. Corporations are scrambling to figure out what new rules actually applies to them and are just doing the safe thing so their company doesn't get sued or shut down. They are hearing that simple word searches are being used to focus on companies doing anything that sounds like DEI. In the military, we are being told not to use the word trans in any sense right now... even in technical terms like trans-sonic and trans-orbital. Because some jackass is just grepping for verboten words to find organizations to focus on. We have stopped celebrating Women's History Month, Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, etc. Those have absolutely nothing to do with DEI, but leadership here is so afraid of having the Eye of Elon pointed at them. They have thousands of people under their command, whose lives are their responsibilities. They don't want to do this, but they are trying to protect their team.

It's much like when a child has an abusive parent and does everything to avoid being noticed. They try to fly as far under the radar as possible so that the attention isn't focused on them.

Simmer down. I never said you said anything about children. I was giving a related law that could be invoked in the case of people with Downs syndrome. You said grown adults doing grown adult things in a conversation about AI generated images of people with Downs syndrome. I was saying there are existing laws SIMILAR to what you are talking about but involving children. Many grown adults with Downs are not able to legally give consent and don't have the capacity to understand what is being done in certain situations, which is the same reasoning for laws around sexual images of children.

I mentioned all of that in my reply to you. Why you chose to overlook all that and focus only on one sentence is beyond my understanding.

It’s not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.

In the US and Australia, it actually is illegal to create art of children in sexual situations. I'm sure other countries have similar laws. Some people with Downs are able to provide consent, but not all of them. So it is a murky area whether creating art around people who are unable to provide consent (as opposed to creating art about people who did not consent) is in the same boat as children.

He'll just find another desperate woman from a low-income country who is just trying to make a better life in the US and will marry any asshole who might get her citizenship... and take advantage of her until she also gets deported.

The kind of person who reacts that way to even their own wife being deported probably never cared about her in the first place.

I know there WERE Sony fans who would get upset that their exclusives would come out on other platforms. Back in the very early 2000s, fanboys would get irate at the smallest perceived slight to their preferred platform. But that hasn't been more than a very niche thing for a decade. Almost nobody cares now.

The issue is it takes too much effort to play vs normal gaming unless you are able to dedicate a room to it. For people in areas where housing costs are low enough that you can afford a big house, or for people who are single and don't have other people in the house to cater to, this might be fine. But for most people, a good VR session involves moving shit out of the way, strapping on a helmet, putting wrist straps on and figuring out whether you want to do that blind after putting the helmet on or trying to put the helmet on with things in your hands, then playing in a specific area so you don't kick your coffee table (and hope your dog doesn't walk in front of you while you are walking).

Contrast that to picking up a controller while sitting down.

If the awesome games were there to make the extra effort worth it, then fine. But there just aren't the great games yet. I have a VR system and haven't put it on in months because I just don't care enough. It has become a novelty.

The title says illicit fentanyl, not legally made fentanyl.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure for the standard use case you talk about isn't pervasive enough. Most apartments don't have chargers at all, let alone one per apartment. You can drive by a Tesla or DC fast charge station at almost any time of day in a big city and see a line of cars waiting to use the small number of chargers. People are taking naps in their car in a bank parking lot while charging. Kudos to them for embracing the inconvenience of not charging at home to help the environment, but I never would have bought my 2 EVs if I didn't have charging at home.

Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me. Starlink needs a dish that has to be outside without trees covering it, so it isn't like they can place new routers around the building that receive Starlink and have wifi capability. They will still have to run a cable from the dish(es?) to new wireless routers. How is that ANY different from just running new wireless routers from their existing fiber?