I had thought the recent understanding was they were likely small wings, like emus or ostriches, to help with balance. Angled back instead of forward.

It made it so I couldn’t play the game, because my computer didn’t meet the spec requirements.

Not saying it was a bad call. My computer was old and shitty, but now I’m out another $900.

I bet Simone Giertz’s Truckla had working windshield wipers…

Front seat? Sure. Back seat? Nah. You have to remove paneling, pull a tab up, then pull a cord forward. That is a three step, non-obvious and non-intuitive way to open a door.

Okay, but pop-tarts are raviolis, not sandwiches. That doesn’t even make sense. What kind of sandwich is enclosed on all sides?

I got pepper sprayed in the military. In order to be allowed to wear pepper spray on our belts (for law enforcement), we had to be pepper sprayed and fight someone off.

I found it strange, because it’s not like we had to know what it was like to be shot and fight back. It was also one of the worst experiences of my life. Getting accidentally splashed across the eyes with hot sauce ended up not so bad simply by comparison, so I had that going for me.

Think of it like a river. If you were getting washed away down a river, would you try to save yourself by swimming up river to where you were? No, you swim to the bank and make your way back from there.

A rip current is just a river in the ocean.

Edit: meant to reply to Not_Rick

It’s the tenets of a religious organization, so public schools should not endorse them specifically.

Interesting read, thank you for that!

It’s the 7 tenets, not ten non-commandments. And they’re really good and honestly better to have in the classroom.

Neither should be in classrooms except in relevant textbooks.

I think you’re misunderstanding the statement. He counts, among his three kids, a trans son. As in, among his three kids he has a trans son. If two of his kids were trans, He would count two trans sons among his three kids. Or he counts two boys among his three kids. Or whatever. It is counting the portion of his kids are in the demographic they are mentioning.

Seriously. He said his defense attorney was inadequate and asked for a different attorney. The judge said you take this one or you decide to represent yourself. And then the defense attorney asked to withdraw.

He never chose to defend himself. He never got the option to continue with his (to his mind) inadequate attorney. They made him defend himself for even questioning if he could get another attorney.

And then instead of explaining or trying to rectify the situation, she just yelled at him and sicced her goons on him.

I read the bill, it’s very short and to the point, and just makes some very small, seemingly uncontraversial additions to the bill. I am curious what possible justification they have for opposing it? That a Democrat sponsored it maybe? Their finger slipped?

Edit: a Republican sponsored it. I understand even less.

Seriously. Like, okay, you think that the whole transgender thing is a fad, or “attention-seeking,” or any other nonsense. Everybody is entitled to opinions, even stupid ones. I guarantee I have some stupid opinions, myself, about things that have no relevance to me.

But feeling the need to express those opinions, and feeling so strongly about it, and wanting to make legislation for it, and pretending you give two shits about girls’ and womens’ sports when 5 years ago you were talking shit about the WNBA because they were a joke to you, when you will knowingly interact with a trans person once or twice in a year, maybe, in your little podunk town, and since you are talking to them you won’t have an opportunity to use a pronoun for them… well there’s obviously something else at work here.

It makes it clear it’s just an excuse to hate, because trans people don’t affect them in the slightest.

So the argument is, it costs so much to maintain the filter that tries to keep innocent people from being executed, so let’s make it cheaper by removing some of that filter.

It costs more to execute somebody than keep them in prison forever in order to make as sure as we can that a person is guilty before executing them, by allowing more appeals.

Suggesting the solution to that is fewer appeals is directly saying that it is better to kill more innocent people at a lower cost than it is to not kill anyone.

Also, that it’s worth killing innocent people as long as bad people die. Not to prevent them from committing further harm, but just to kill them.

I’m struggling to see the benefit in that cost/benefit analysis. It’s not about protecting people (because it actively kills innocent people), it’s about killing people just to kill bad people.

Edit: I misunderstood what you were saying. But I would also say that while it would be great to improve the system for the initial trial, removing appeals would have the opposite effect and wouldn’t help the initial trial at all. However, if the initial trials are better, everything would still be cheaper regardless of the appeals because there’d be less people falsely imprisoned on death row.

“United States… Space Corps?”

Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!

Ah, that makes sense. I’m in the military, and we have a similar thing for people who are either due to transfer or retire in the next couple months: FIIGMO. It means “Fuck it, I’ve got my orders.” (For clarification, orders in this context are travel/Primary Change of Station/Retirement Orders, a written and signed document saying they’ll be leaving)

It seems like a weirdly deliberate term for something that has been around forever and typically just attributed to low morale. It makes it seem like a person unhappy at work but just doing their job is somehow sticking it to their boss/company. I’ve dealt with a lot of people like that, both as a peer and a supervisor, and it was never them doing anything intentionally, just being unhappy (and most of the time it had nothing to do with the pay or conditions, just not being suited to the job or general attitude toward life). They could often be a blight on morale, though, so I see how it could be frustrating for supervisors (and peers, they made work miserable for everyone).

I’ve never understood “quiet quitting” as a term. When did just doing your job become something that needs a term? “Working adequately” seems more apt, but I can’t imagine the context that would be worthy of discussion outside an employee review.

Oh, great, so he bought evidence of a crime from the hotel (how are both of sides of that transaction not being prosecuted for obstruction of justice?!), and held onto it long enough to go past the surprisingly short statute of limitations. I guess if you have the money, that’s all you need to do.

That SoL is ridiculous.