Tell me this: if you were watching a movie and men in black masks were taking people off the street and sending them off, never to be seen again, and those same men were separating children from parents forcibly and locking them all in cages/compounds for months on end....
Would those people in this hypothetical movie, strike you as "good" guys, or "bad" guys?
Because that's what's happening, in real life, in the USA, right now.
Cue the "are we the baddies?" meme.
I've gotten into the habit of eating lunch while I'm working specifically so I can take a short mid day nap during my scheduled "lunch" at work.
Working from home has some nice perks.
That's a controversial take.
As far as I'm concerned, TST is only a "religion" on the books as a basic requirement for them to insert themselves into all of the places that religion, specifically Christianity, is inserted into by government, so they can demonstrate the hypocrisy of the "leadership" that was elected.
Also, having a belief that there isn't anything in the great beyond, is still a belief. You can have a belief without denying reality/Science. None of these things are mutually exclusive. I'm saddened that you don't seem to believe that.
At the end of the day, I see anyone identifying as a satanist under TST to be doing advocacy work on behalf of nonbelievers, since most governments would rather deny all religious symbols/rituals/information from government than allow "Satanists" a platform. Their actions unilaterally has eliminated, mitigated, or otherwise diminished the involvement of any one particular sky daddy from government. It's a worthwhile thing to be done.
You're entitled to an opinion, even if everyone else disagrees, so think whatever you want. I don't agree that you can't be agnostic/atheist and be a part of a "religion". You absolutely can.
Even the lack of a belief is, in and of itself, a belief.
As I get older, the value of nap time has increased.
When I was a child I was very anti-nap. In my youth I was very indifferent to napping. In my mid-adult years, napping is more important than most things.
I like the cut of your jib.
I can only give you examples from my thoughts when I was faced with this dilemma and what I did about it.
Simply: wired headphones don't need to be charged. Having "true wireless" (aka airpod style) headphones, you need to stop listening to charge your headphones, which seems unnecessary to me, and I'm worried it would happen at inopportune times; I'm pretty bad with keeping things consistently charged, I usually charge them, toss them in a bag then promptly forget about them for a few months until I need them, and with some stuff, that means it's dead by the time I pick it up again. Not a problem with wired headphones.
My car also is pretty old, not tape deck old, but the Bluetooth in the car is still Bluetooth 2.0, which isn't the most energy efficient.
So when I got a phone with no headphone jack, I set out to solve a few things. Among those things: if it's wireless, I need to be able to charge while listening, and output to my car's aux, and an unpowered/wired headphone.
My solution to the dilemma came in the form of a device from Fiio, the BTR5. Basically the BTR5 is a Bluetooth headphone jack. It just connects over bt and outputs to a 3.5 (or 2.5 balanced) jack. It charges by USB C, and can charge while listening and it's actually designed to do that. It has a "car mode" that will turn on/off the device depending on whether it is receiving power or not, so it will come on when you turn on your car by hooking it up to your vehicle semi permanently.
Now, I can charge my phone, and my BTR5 while I'm listening, giving me practically infinite use time. I have a small collection of IEMs that I can toss in a bag and it doesn't matter if my BTR5 is dead or not, since I can charge it with my battery bank that holds a charge longer than other battery powered things I have.
On top of that, the BTR5 can also playback via USB. Aside from that, I also picked up a USB C charge/listen dongle as a backup and that works with my IEMs, or any other 3.5mm headphone or aux connection.
I also have a direct USB C to headphone adapter that came with one of my smartphones. Between all of my options I have never needed to make any compromises on when I listen to music or how I want to listen.
I also have some fully Bluetooth headsets, my favorite is from trekz, which mainly makes bone conduction headsets; i mainly only use that one headset but I do have others that I don't pick up very often.
I find that most consumer Bluetooth headsets cannot be charged while in use. Even if you can physically plug in the charger while wearing them so it should be able to do both, I usually find that they will turn themselves off while charging. The trekz are not immune to this. I like them mainly for the bone conduction, but because of their inability to charge while in use, I tend to put them on the charger the night before I plan to use them.
I just throw my BTR5 in my bag with a few sets of IEMs, and my USB to headphone adapters. I have my power bank in my bag all the time as well (along with a USB C charger, which powers/charges my phone, laptop, power bank, BTR5, etc).
I don't know what other people's requirements are, but I found my solution. I won't throw any shade at anyone who has different requirements, nor uses their tech differently. My solution isn't your solution. I'm happy with my setup, and it works really well for me. I can put in my IEMs, wire up my BTR5 and listen as long as I like, when the BTR runs low on batteries I can stuff my battery bank in my pocket and plug it in to charge and have no interruption in my listening. I can also just plug the BTR5 into my computer by USB C and it will connect as an audio device over USB C and I can get my computer audio over my headphones without needing to unplug them.
I hope that fills in some gaps for you, I'm certain my use is not the only use cases that require a 3.5mm jack, and I know I have more significant demands than most (otherwise airpods wouldn't be popular). So I know I'm in a minority, and that's fine.
Let me know if you have any questions, or comments. Take care.
Sort of.
The satanic Temple chose their name because of the literal meaning of the word "Satan", which may be the name of the big bad from religious types but actually means "adversary" when directly translated from Hebrew.
Atheists can take all forms, and by no means do I assume what any individual believes, but by the very definition, atheists can be extremely passive in their belief, or more accurately, non-belief. The atheists I know are usually very live and let live, after a while because they realize that arguing the point with religious folks usually doesn't get you anywhere.
TST is dedicated to the fair use and representation of religions in society. They're obviously based in the USA where there is a separation of church and state, at least, there's supposed to be. So the state cannot show favoritism to any religion, but they often do. Usually with monuments like a depiction of the ten commandments placed on city owned land. This is a real and fairly recent issue that TST got involved on. They asked that a statue of Baphomet be placed on the same city owned land, forcing the city into a position of either allowing the statue to be placed along side the very Christian ten commandments, or admit that they are favoring Christianity, which they basically cannot do because it's a violation of their station.
Satanists are a bit more active, by default, than atheists. Not to say atheists are inactive or lazy, it's just that Satanists have a very specific target.
As opposed to what? A single post on Reddit? Xitter? Blusky? Facebook?
How do you know that the OP, and everyone else on this thread didn't reshare to those places?
What exactly qualifies as amplification to you? How high of a bar do we need to pass to be good enough for you, your Highness.
I told them as much. I spoke to a manager about it once on a call and I'm like, how the hell do I know you're actually the bank? You've given me nothing. Then you're asking for my uniquely identifying personal information via a voice prompt. Literally anyone could spoof all of this and you're training your clients to just hand over the information when asked, not even by a person, but by a robocall.
Yeah, I got another a few months later, same shit.
I feel bad for the customers of that bank. They're not my primary bank so I couldn't give a shit. I'm also security focused enough to know better.
Posts about lack of message amplification on a post that is amplifying the message.
Cool.
It's simple.
If law enforcement is anonymous, then anyone anonymous is law enforcement.
I've had security discussions with people who should know better about similar stuff. When someone calls me, I have no idea if it's you. Caller ID is insanely easy to spoof. I've had banks call me and demand I identify myself to them; how about you prove to me that you are who you say you are before I start handing out my personal information?
Interestingly, they don't seem to get it. They just go "I'm from xyz bank" yeah.... You say that... How do I know you're not lying? "I'm not lying, I'm calling from xyz bank"
Dur. We go around a few times with this before they give up.
I usually call my bank using the number on the back of my card, then ask that person if I was called and why.
Now you want me to take it.... On faith, and the word of the person who is concealing their identity, that they are who they say they are?
This is the entire fucking reason that LEOs carry badges. It's so that the public can verify that they're talking to someone who actually is who they say they are.
Anything less is just asking for people to impersonate a LEO or ICE agent in this case.
I'm over here waiting to see whether the apocalypse is more Matrix, Terminator, or idiocracy. I'm leaning idiocracy, but I'm not giving up on the others.