• 15 Posts
  • 2.46K Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • But when I take a brake, doesn’t that mean I’m stopping work, hitting the brakes?

    When I diffuse a situation, doesn’t that mean I’m thinning out the tension or whatever?

    People make up whatever reason they need to avoid going to a dictionary to understand what they’re writing.

    (It’s break and defuse, in case anyone was wondering. The first doesn’t need explanation, but defuse is because you want to cut the fuse off from the thing that’s going to blow up, the thing being the situation)




  • Company spyware. We have that on our devices. They used to have an “about” stored locally on the app, but removed it and a web connection is required to view the docs. Basically says it downloads/sees everything on your device and checks for threats. Thing is a few people have been fired for having things in their devices they shouldn’t. I didn’t ask what it was, nor did I hear how these things were “threats”, but nonetheless they were fired. Too many people treat company hardware like “free device, bro!” and put all sorts of personal stuff on the device. Most industries it’s probably not too big of a deal, but for mine if there’s an incident that happens when you were busy watching Netflix or something instead of doing your job you’re fucked. First thing they’ll do is check your device and crowdstrike to see what you were doing, and even if you weren’t watching Netflix all your personal data will be exposed.







  • Large bridges, airports, urban areas, any military installations, dams/hydroelectric, power plants, major train hubs, etc. are all targets in all-out nuclear war. You’ll need to actually think of how many things are targets and plot what not to be near.

    Either way, all-out war would fuck the planet and probably set us back a century at best. If China survived they’d be the global power as they have the resources and manufacturing that the rest of the world has mostly given up, the rest would be completely decimated.








  • I’ve heard the “wealthy people” argument many times. Like I said, if you can afford the guns you can afford the ability to secure them. Failure to secure guns is what gets people killed, either because of accidental shootings, theft, or the guns being taken without permission. I’m not interested in debating poverty and gun ownership if the lack of ability to pay for insurance or a safe means someone else has to pay with their life. We’re already there and it’s already a massive problem. It’s why this discussion is even happening.

    E: this is the most ‘Murica thing I’ve ever heard. Guns are a fucking problem, people have proven they can’t be responsible for them, and here we have people suggesting we use public money to distribute them for free or at little cost. Yeah, the answer is MORE guns. Tf is wrong with people.


  • My premise was that someone goes out of their way to shoot someone else, so suicide is right out based on that criteria.

    The rest I’m not really thinking is worth our time to quibble over semantics and we probably don’t want to get in the weeds about statistics.

    For instance the gang members - yes, you need to “go out of your way” to hop in a car and go do a drive-by shooting. But now we get to the people being shot at. Do you consider the gang members being shot at “bad people”? That right there is a deep dive into social stigma, poverty, prejudice, and a whole discussion about personal views and the lives of the people being shot at. Then what if the shooter hits an innocent bystander? Some are perfectly willing to suggest that anyone hanging out with gang members, even if not a member themselves, is by default not a good person. Guilty by association, as it were? Maybe the gang banger was well liked in the neighborhood…still a bad guy?

    How about the crime of passion…if there’s a gun in the house and there has been domestic violence in the past, but this time someone uses the gun and shoots the other, is that still “going out of the way” to shoot them? What do we know about whether they’re good people or not?

    Self defense isn’t going you of your way to shoot someone at all. That’s usually to stop an immediate threat.



  • I wonder what the survey questions were like? I mean, it’s completely reasonable to find someone of the same sex attractive… There’s a pic of Pierce Brosnan floating around the fediverse right now and that man is dapper AF. Doesn’t mean I want to have his babies but he’s sure as hell attractive. So if someone put a question on a survey that asked if you can find someone of the same sex attractive, would that qualify as “not fully straight”? Even if you have zero interest outside of that admiration of someone’s physical appearance? I’d assume it would be impossible to be “fully straight” for most anyone if that were the criteria…