hedgehog
joined 2 years ago
Claiming that GTA is responsible for mass shootings is an example of what pro-gun activists do in order to deflect the blame off of guns.
You don’t have a moral or ethical obligation to respect their terms, but I wouldn’t go too wild with it, as using a ton of data might get noticed and fixed, causing someone else who’s benefiting from this and who can’t afford a replacement setup to lose it.
"I think we should have, like, the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI
Step 1: Don’t use ChatGPT or other cloud AI services
Step 2: Use AI locally within FOSS applications, or not at all
In fact, Redot has had 13 releases since the project started late last year.
With an absolutely massive number of commits since then.
An absolutely massive number of commits that were originally made to Godot, sure. Redot has 118 more commits than Godot as of the time of this writing (76,344 vs 76,266). That’s not even 1 original commit per day.
Certainly the latter.
I have pretty decent insurance through work, but if I’m picking up a prescription, it’s cheaper for me to say I don’t have insurance and use a free discount card (like GoodRx) than to use my insurance. We’re talking $150-$200 for one prescription (a one month supply) with insurance vs $30 without.
To be fair, I have an HDHP with an HSA so my insurance is only supposed to negotiate a discount until I hit the deductible, rather than paying for it. Full price is $200-$250, I think? (I get generics and each generic variant has a slightly different price.) So technically they’re providing a discount, just not a very good one.
Insurance also likes to require a “prior authorization,” which was always a fun surprise after making it through the pharmacy line. That normally takes a couple days to resolve, at minimum, and sometimes longer. If you’re not familiar with prior auths, it’s basically when the insurance company says “Hey doc, can you justify why you’re prescribing this and answer these eight questions?” and then they have someone without a medical degree review the answer and see if it’s good enough.
The only downside to paying out of pocket with a discount card is that the $30 doesn’t go toward my deductible. But since my deductible is multiple thousands of dollars, unless something else happens during the year, I won’t hit my deductible off the $150-$200 prescriptions + regular doctor visits alone. But that’s at most $360 out of pocket that wouldn’t have gone toward the deductible, assuming I had a health crisis in December, vs $1440-$2040 saved if I don’t.
X-rays are even worse, because you’re not told the price ahead of time.
I’m a millennial and I did it more than once on hardware older than I was, but because I wanted to, not because there were no other options.
Illegal vote suppression elected Trump, but even if it hadn’t, you should blame Democrats before blaming people who voted for third party candidates. Now, if you’re talking about people who “protest voted” by voting for Trump (in both the primaries and the election), then sure. Those people did, in fact, play an instrumental part in electing him.
Why blame Democrats? Well, beyond just kinda being Republican-lites:
- for opposing ranked choice voting (and alternatives)
- for not rallying around progressive candidates
- for not choosing Kamala via primary elections in 2024
Democrats are the bare minimum “harm reduction” party, and I don’t bare any ill will toward people who voted for them rather than a party that would actually try to effect change, but the opposite mindset - blaming third party voters for not voting for Democrats - is very shortsighted. And as third party voters have never had the power to enact RCV or STAR voting or otherwise improve the system, blaming them instead of the Democrats who have had that power is inane.
I’ve voted for a Democrat every single presidential election that I’ve been able to, but I honestly wish I hadn’t. I’d much rather there be more visibility for third parties, and for more people to feel empowered to vote for third party candidates.
I don’t use my Windows 10 desktop a ton, but I’ve definitely gotten the full page “Update to Windows 11” screen a few times, and it has Windows 10 Pro installed.
Sure, just be aware that unripe tomatoes (not just the stems) are also toxic to cats.
You can’t just consider the cheese! You gotta look up all the ingredients!
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/bread
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/lettuce
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/tomato
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/mayonnaise
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/beef
- https://www.cancateat.food/food/cheese
Consensus: hold the tomato! Otherwise, if there’s no seasoning, everything else is acceptable in small amounts.
Glaring doesn't imply a negative meaning. In this case it's used to mean "obvious".
Unless you’re suggesting that “glaring” means “obviously staring” (it doesn’t - that would be “glaringly staring”) this doesn’t make any sense.
“[He’s] glaring at [direct object]” is an example of a sentence that uses the present participle form of the verb “glare,” which explicitly communicates anger or fierceness.
If you’re not convinced, read on.
—————
The verb form that takes an object is:
Glare (verb with object): to express with a glare. They glared their anger at each other
The noun form the above definition references is:
Glare (noun): a fiercely or angrily piercing stare.
“Glaring” can be an adjective and one of those definitions does mean “obvious” or “conspicuous,” but the use of that form of the word doesn’t make sense in her sentence. Think about a comparable sentence like “The undercover operative is conspicuous at the bar,” where the bar is the location. (Even then, most people wouldn’t use “glaring” in that sentence, as “conspicuous” or “obvious” are much less ambiguous; the operative could be staring piercingly or angrily at the bar rather than being glaring while being at the bar.) Another example that makes a bit more sense is “The effect of the invasive plants is glaring at the park.”
But for that interpretation to be valid here, you’d have to:
- believe that the dude is trying to hide/blend in, or otherwise explain how he - not what he’s doing, but the dude himself - is conspicuous
- believe that the woman’s referring to her own ass as a location
- assume that she isn’t commenting on how the guy is looking at her ass, even though the joke depends on giving him something different to look at
That’s a bit of a stretch.
view more: next ›