ImplyingImplications

People who vote for fascists don't believe it will solve inequality. They believe it will make them the benefactors of inequality. They don't want to get rid of societal hierarchy, but to be placed closer to the top.

My workplace sometimes has a slow day and the bosses will give workers two options: Go home unpaid, or stay at work for your entire shift and get paid. If you stay, you don't have to do any work, since there is no work to be done. People mostly sit in the cafeteria on their phones for 8 hours.

I asked why we can't choose to go home and get paid and they said it's because then we'd be getting paid for nothing...but we're all sitting in the cafeteria on our phones. We're not working. We are literally being paid for nothing. Why can't we go home with pay? What's the difference?

The difference is that labourers must trade their time for pay. You are selling an hour of your time to the company. That hour doesn't need to be productive, but you can't use it freely. It's the company that makes money by selling a product or service, not its workers. A worker who produces $10,000 of product in an hour is paid for the hour, not for the product. The owner is paid for the product.

Kensweep Lafloor

That would be isPositive.

Without using the modulo operator you'd essentially have to reimplement it. Divide the number by 2 and round down. Multiply that by 2 and then subtract it from the original number.

isEven(10) results in 10-10==0 (true) whereas isEven(13) results in 13-12==0 (false).

function isEven(n){
  n = Math.abs(n)
  return (n - (Math.floor(n/2) * 2)) == 0
}

It's difficult to call for Trudeau to resign and also vote that you have confidence in Trudeau as a leader. Obviously he doesn't want to hand the government to the Conservatives but supporting Trudeau wasn't winning any favours either.

There's a reason Patrick Bateman worked in ~~murders and executions~~ mergers and acquisitions.

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

That's mixing up actions with intent. Their actions made it seem like it was a gift, sure. Their intent was that it was a prank. They even told the uncle it was a prank from the start.

If I go to a store an stick a PS5 into my jacket I can't be charged with theft. It looks like theft, but intent to steal needs to be shown. How do they know my intent isn't to pay for it? It's not theft until I leave the store without paying. Just like sticking a PS5 into my jacket isn't instantly theft, handing someone a PS5 isn't instantly a gift. Actions and intent are different things.

The article has been updated to say they're actually giving the kid a PS5 because of the bad press so in the end they're doing the right thing anyways.

Taking the name of this community a little too literally

Capital G Gamers are the worst! It's fine to not enjoy something, but Gamers seem to spend more time getting upset over literally everything than actually playing video games. They also don't acknowledge that indie games exist. They'll complain every game now has microtransactions but pretend not to see the thousands of indie games that don't have any.

Western devs can't make an attractive male design. That's why I only play games from Japanese devs that make pretty boys like Alphinaud from Final Fantasy XIV

Gift law, what the original person was talking about, literally states that the donor must intend on giving the gift.

The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee.

If you come over to my house and say "hey, nice PS5" and I say "you want it? It's yours!" and then before you leave I say "I was just joking, you can't leave with my PS5." You really think you can go to the police and have me charged with theft?