Kobolds with a keyboard.
The term black pill, first popularized in the 2010s on the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt, refers to accepting the futility of fighting against a feminist system. Blackpilled incels are encouraged to either commit suicide or “go ER”/be a “hERo,” referencing Elliot Rodger’s 2014 Isla Vista murder spree that has been called an act of misogynistic terrorism.
(Source: Britannica)
So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?
For example, Penny Dreadful is a fun fan-organized Magic the Gathering constructed format, played exclusively on MtG Online, wherein legality is determined by cards that were worth $0.02 or less during the previous 3-month ‘season’, making decks inherently very affordable.
It has a neat self-regulating effect since enough people play the format that if a card is particularly strong in a given season, the demand created by the format will typically drive the price up above $0.02, and cause it to be illegal in the next season.
It seems like this would create a format with only very bad cards, but card prices are a bit wild in MtGO, such that there’s actually over 14,000 legal cards currently including many rare and mythic rarity cards.
On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.
Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.
This new series of Battlebots sounds pretty entertaining.
For a game built around limited formats (like drafting or sealed deck play), it makes sense / is a necessity for the format to work. It definitely sucks for constructed formats, though.
My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?
Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.
Also some absolutely great dialog / voice acting.
“You are WOEFULLY deficient in the ways of etiquette, BUT… you have a point.”
Hopefully it’ll act as a spoiler against the republican candidate, opening the door for a progressive party to also form without causing a far-right candidate to get elected.
That definitely has to cause more pollution.
This is what the article is about… They’re basically saying “The fireworks are going to cause hazardous air conditions, stay inside and keep your windows and doors shut, don’t go outside to cook because you’re subjecting yourselves to dangerous levels of pollution.”
Agree with you that fireworks just seem like an unnecessary relic from the past. Plus, in addition to the pollution concerns, they scare the shit out of animals, and can cause fires, especially the ‘backyard’ variety.
There’s already services like Box.com that offer similar functionality for files.
As a suggestion, having an option to have the string deleted after it’s been accessed once would be nice as an extra layer of protection.
Not that I’d use this service for it, but I’ve had use cases for this sort of thing. It’s not so much about plausible deniability as OP wants to sell it as, but more about security. You send the locked link (or a PW protected file or whatever) via, say, email, and the password through a text message. Then, in order for the data to be stolen, the attacker would need access to both of those, rather than only one. It’s niche, but I’ve needed to do it for my job before, so I can at least see the point.
Makes privacy-focused service
Disallows access through VPNs
Mate…
The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”
Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.
It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.
It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.
I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.
This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.
Luigi got Brian walking down the street
Allegedly.
User 1: “I’m having an issue with a service, has anyone else experienced this?”
User 2: “I do not use that service.” <-- This contributes nothing to the discussion, and makes User 2 sound like a prick. Don’t be like User 2.
The term is connected to misogyny. If someone just wants to give up dating and that’s the end of it, there’s no reason for anyone to be ticked off by that idea. It’s the doomer attitude surrounding it and the effects of it that cause problems. You used the term ‘black pill’, which has specific connotations - it’s not simply choosing to give up dating.