The punishment was easy, so the intent wasn’t as great. You know, the difference between a bullet to the head and repeated bashing with a rock. I’m sure in all these instances, the lack of effort was a relief to the target of the action.

He walks the dog. He doesn’t say anything about the dogs walking. I’m guessing he does dog curls on that walk.

I’m sorry, I think I misread what you were saying. I thought you were referring to the kid in the picture and not his classmates. But perhaps this kid’s actions will give them some insight into the flaws of the system and just how little it would take to improve it.

Or, just maybe, he realizes he’s in a better position than most of those around him, and is willing to give extra so their lives would be better. You know, socialism.

I’m not the best guy to ask for sensitive responses, but try to take my blunt and possibly obnoxious response in a positive light.

There are a lot of people saying terrible things on the internet, to the point where only the more aggregious ones stand out. Most things will be ignored or forgotten by most people, whether they were good or bad, but I appreciated this post, and you for putting it out there.

I was trying to make a lewdly suggestive comment about vintage balls leaving them hanging. Apparently it wasn’t done very well, but it did have unintended and appreciated consequences.

And he just leaves them hanging.

I’m referring to the users asking the questions.

There have been plenty of studies that refute this, from various countries. I can only conclude that this belief/wish stems from a variant of the puritanical work ethic where hard work will lead to prosperity, and winning the lottery isn’t hard work so will obviously not lead to prosperity.

I’ve won the lottery. Sure, it was only a few grand and my life didn’t significantly change. Studies on winners of truly large amounts of money, in the millions, tend to have more successful outcomes, with the studies I’ve seen putting between 66% and over 80% retaining their wealth for 5 or 10 years after winning.

The problems with single sign-on and retained sign-on made it into The Boys. Most relatable scene in the show for me. I’m not saying my crew are geniuses, but this seems pretty endemic.

Here’s my Jira experience. MS shop, have a programming department, but I’m not in programming and programming isn’t our core product.

Need something that requires a Jira request. I use MS Edge because that’s what IT recommends and it’s not my computer. The only putative upside is that it knows who I’m logged in as. I click on the link for Jira, it asks me if I want to sign in with my account, which I assume is the MS one since it has the right email/user for it. It tells me that’s the wrong one. Would I like to use my Atlassian account? Sure, let’s use the same email. Whoops, you don’t have an Atlassian account, but there’s an MS account for your company. Do you want to use that, or something from the usual list of places that will log you in (Google, Facebook, MS)? Note that the MS option is only included in the list of third-party logins even though it knows my company has MS logins setup. So I click the MS option, and it may or may not ask for my password, because I’m already logged in via Edge, but it will certainly do my 2FA. And now I’m finally able to tell IT what is bothering me, and they wonder why people always seem frustrated.

So, now that I’ve gone through that once, I can save a single click by not choosing the Atlassian account option and go directly to signing in with a third party. I can only assume this is supposed to be the streamlined process.

Doing something that demonstrably doesn’t work isn’t how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.

I’m not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.

I’ll give you an upvote just for knowing what type of gem it was. So many South African diamond mine comments smh.

o7

Those dogs. “Finally! The gift of Prometheus! …Now what?”

Nor should they. Lossless image manipulation doesn’t remove data. Fortunately, a dumb pedophile was caught due to his lack of security awareness.

Then rail the maid of honor on the wedding cake table. Time’s a wasting!

NASA spent more than that on the Shuttle program alone, and we got 135 launches and a dozen dead astronauts, so that is demonstrably false.

NASA is great, and did a lot of great things. We also got a lot of great technology (and some questionable shoes) because of it. But NASA suffers from the same thing Blue Origin does, bureaucracy and a top-down attitude with respect to developing technology. (They also suffered from a lot of government pork.) It’s a good system for developing new things from scratch with a clear goal, but it rarely works well for taking existing technology and wringing the most effectiveness you can out of it.

Besides all this, the shuttle program suffered from ties to the military, which put in expensive requirements that didn’t help the whole thing, either.

If NASA got out of the rocket launching business and contracted out that part of their mandate to others, they would have a lot more money to spend on other things, such as research, both pure and practical.

A little vague, but fair.

Which tools of government are used to maintain power for capitalists that also are of no use to a communist government?

Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren’t government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.

So what I’m seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.

Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.

Given this paradigm, how would you describe anarchy and communism?