Can I vote for obsfuscators not holding a language hostage?

Here, take this cigarette!

You don’t want a department that you throw it over the fence to, you want them embedded on your team. Keep those feedback loops TIGHT bois

'Nailing down the definition of a story point to “1 developer day” oughta do it ’

When I cook, I am extremely strategic about what I use, and clean as I go. The dishwasher wouldn’t really save me any time based on how I operate in the kitchen.

When my wife cooks, it appears to be her goal to use every fucking dish and utensil we own in the process.

But I don’t care. Hell, I’m proud of how successful she is at reaching this apparent goal… because MOST of it can go right in the dishwasher. Now I don’t even bother to ask how we have 10 greasy teaspoons after she made chicken.

I don’t think libertarians really see wage slavery as the worst thing.

I think the fundamental difference is that libertarians don’t care about outcomes. Or, at least they don’t think that they do as long as they have food in their stomach and a barrier against the cold.

In their minds, it’s all about them not being compelled to partake in anything they don’t want to. If that means starving, fine (so they say, and I’m very suspicious of this claim), but at least there was no authority over them.

Most sane people strike a balance between valuing good practical outcomes, and more abstract notions like liberty and justice.

Full authoritarians say that only outcomes are important, that abstract notions like freedom are impediments to the greatest good, and you end up with things like the USSR.

So you’re right that there wouldn’t be a minimum wage… But you’re wrong to appeal to the concept of wage slavery because it presupposes a libertarian values satisfactory outcomes. They don’t.

Honestly there is no talking down a libertarian without first convincing them their lives are worth more than some definition of liberty.

Are you suggesting that there is a material difference of minimal testing standard between the EU and the USA?

It was working for a while for the guy. He was paralyzed from the neck down and he was able to use it to play some lame game like LoL or something.

Ok, fair, I apologize.

I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.

You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.

And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?

1. Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true

2. correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?

Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.

This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

Ok here is a paywalled NYT article then.

Your quote from the article contains a faulty premise:

Police are not obligated to protect the public.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Edit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

Edit 2: it was pointed out the quote was SPECIFICALLY about what police officers “swear”.

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm#:~:text=do solemnly swear (or%20affirm,and%20impartially%20discharge%20the%20duties

That varies, but in Arizona, no, you don’t swear to protect people.

So, to say that police officers swear to protect people? Some do make that oath. But the general statement is false by way of counter example.

But, with the links supplied, the courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that, despite the oath that some officers take, there is no such legal duty.

So, anyone who parrots lines about the police protecting you are just perpetuating a fictional notion so engrained that people are shocked to hear otherwise.

Don’t accidentally bootlick. Don’t ever let that statement go unchallenged.

I mean, ops comment history is there for the reading.

Russia is gleefully rubbing their hands because they know the US public can literally only keep one thought in their heads at once and this grantees political apathy towards the Russian invasion.

Call the attorney general on me I’m calling the Ombudsman on you

https://youtu.be/KCEEwx4jZwc?si=hJ99BB-p__DSyw3c

I am also committed to not learning things, and am very proud of that!

To be fair, the immancy of war with Russia is purely a function of proximity and preparedness.

I don’t understand that unit of measurement. How many football fields is that.

Is their justification for that accusation simply that the bots exist?

Is the author actually accusing the company itself of running the bots in that sentence? The more I read it the more it hurts my brain. The more times I read this article my brain just hurts more and more. They’re not even attempting to explain, let alone justify, this assertion.