i want this to be true.

but it’s probably just the TA who’s using it.

My head cannon

intentional or not, the image fits 👍

i don’t care who baked them, i ain’t eating those fingers.

if it read “what’s the problem”, i’d agree. otherwise, i’ll toss it to whoever’s well-versed in Chicago speech styles. perhaps the passive-aggressiveness of Seattle is coloring my view 🙃

half of the clergy said “what’s your problem”, which would usually mean “the answer to whatever you just asked is so obviously ‘no’ that you’re a bad person just for asking it: what’s your problem”. i have to respect that some topics are simply off-limits for some people: if you’re going to someone asking for advice about a moral quandary and their convictions are strong enough they don’t wanna discuss the topic beyond “hell no”, i don’t fault them for that.

in my head, there’s a direct causal chain:

1. the court presents me with the accusation and the evidence.
2. i declare if the evidence supports the accusation.
3. the judge declares a punishment in response to that verdict.
4. law enforcement delivers the punishment.

if i believe (3) and (4) will function as stated, then it’s equally accurate to say that in step 2 i am deciding whether or not to confiscate $250,000 from this mother and cancel her home internet connection.

but a huge number of people i present this to refuse to admit that equivalence. there is some question about whether weakening the norm might cause more damage than mistreating the mother, but does that even weaken the point? the common answer from those who bring it up is “there’s too much uncertainty to say”: build a complex enough machine, and people are eager to deny the downstream effects of their actions.

(you can overcome most of the degradation-of-norms issue by making this a secret hearing, and still a lot of people will hesitate to admit the equivalence between their verdict in step 2 and the effects of step 3/4)

i’ve had better luck illustrating the point with a less abstract case: the 2000’s called and it’s your turn for jury dury. the case for today is that of a single mother who downloaded some Disney movies off Limewire for her kids to watch so she could get some time to herself to take care of chores.

should the jury find her guilty, you suspect that the judge will fine her $250,000 and cancel her home internet connection. you think such a punishment would do more net harm than good. but you don’t get to decide the punishment (that’s for the judge to announce after the jury deliberates), you just decide the guilty/not-guilty verdict.

you look at the evidence: the mother definitely downloaded those files. what verdict do you deliver the judge?

ourethra

still can’t believe they actually got away with that

you can find recipes for this approach under the label of “one-pot pastas”. some techniques (common for alfredo) don’t even call for water: brown the noodles in butter, a bit of wine (which the noodles will absorb), thicken with flour (like you’re making a roux), stir in the veggies/meat/spices.

omg i used to live a few blocks away from that sign

oh god, Cybertruck culture is just incel culture applied to a different topic. different groups, maybe, but the same culture.

Why are we OK with thick folding phones, but not with thick no-folds?

i think by “we” you mean the manufacturers? AFAICT they just gave away the game: the push for thin phones was more from the supply side than the demand side. not saying people don’t generally prefer thin phones – just that the preference is probably weaker than has been made out to be.

that said, i think it’s more fair to compare things like cubic volume and weight than just the thinness. a 1/2" thick full-size phone would be uncomfortable in my pocket, whereas a 1/2" thick wallet-sized phone might actually be more comfortable than a traditional smartphone.

crafting a search term has changed over the years though. the old approach of “type 3-5 keywords into the box and get a list of pages that use those words close to eachother” isn’t supported anymore, and the new approach is “type a phrase and we’ll look for things semantically related”.

at that point, the input box isn’t that different from the chatbot box.

oh wow, often these efforts are limited to either a single metro area, or to those parts of Europe that are all well-connected to eachother but scrolling the database i see routes for every continent (i mean, except for Antarctica) 💛

i’m in my finite element phase

that’s a lot to remember and i don’t see the point of it. android girls are perfectly alright with me 👌

In August, the man allegedly pulled Dalton from her car, which struck and killed her as her assailant drove away.

i’m having trouble visualizing what happened here. she was pulled out of her car, and then her car rolled over her? but it only rolled her over after the assailant had returned to his own car and was driving away?

i’m not trying to be a skeptic: i’m just confused what actually happened.

poor Stark, outranked by a dead guy

i know this form has only two boxes but you gave me this pen and there’s some room in the margin so –

hmm, who’s that lady my Aunt plays bridge with each Sunday? Jill something-or-other? she seemed kind 📝