If they ever develop a technology that flawlessly reproduces the feeling of having sex with a real woman, consider marriage and relationships dead.
If anything, the attraction of AI girlfriends is a form of commentary on how truly awful real women behave.
It's also hard to accurately capture your diet even when acting in good faith.
I had one of those apps where you record your calories and nutrients, and packaged food was pretty easy- you just select "1 can of coke" from the database. But if it's a serving of vegetables someone plated for you, was it a cup or 1.5 cups? Did they add a ton of salt that you don't know about?
You basically have to either eat all prepackaged foods (unhealthy) or prepare all your meals yourself and religiously measure and track every recipe component to get an accurate assessment.
His mistake was going down the parental rights angle and trying to work with the school directly. That's how reasonable people handle things, but we don't live in reasonable times- as he found out.
What he should have done is called Poison Control and told them one of his younger kids got into the bag and he doesn't know what the pill is or how many were in there because the school distributed them without proper markings and probably no prescription. Then he should have proceeded to file a police report and get on the evening news. He could have probably forced whatever authority licensed that clinic to do an investigation by doing this.
Bottom line: they couldn't give a shit about his rights as a father, but the school would have slunk away with its tail between its legs if they were exposed for potentially poisoning a child.
"2SLGBTQI+"
LoL, they just keep adding letters.
There was an episode in that series that highlighted stupid women and men that simp for them.
It's after a nuclear apocalypse and they are military officers in bunkers. The girl is in her bunker, and there's two dudes in another bunker. I think the girl had a crewmate that went outside where the radiation is supposedly lethal and that's why she's alone. One of the two dudes develops feelings for the girl over their radio chats.
The girl can swear she hears living people outside and ignores the two guys warnings and leaves her bunker. They hear screaming and the radio cuts off.
Pretty soon the girl shows up outside of the guys bunker (which is miles away) and convinces the guy who is simping for her to open the door and go outside. The other dude tries to stop him and immediately slams door shut behind him to protect himself.
Turns out all the "survivors" are some kind of vampire, and the girl and her simp buddy are turned. The episode ends with the last human guy in his bunker and his former crewmate is trying every code on the door starting with 0001. He tells the last human that he's got infinite time to keep trying until he gets in and you see the human guy sink down in his chair because he knows the vampire is right.
Agreed, but doesn't the Communications Decency Act render the government's lawsuit moot anyway?
Regardless of any promise Facebook may have given to "crack down on vaccine misinformation" (which is a statement so broad and vague that it can't possibly be construed to be a promise or contract that would be subject to consumer protection laws), they are given pretty much complete immunity from liability for the content on their site.
That's bright letter law, that I don't necessarily agree with, but it's been tested in court numerous times. They have no obligation to censor even illegal content, and can't be held responsible in any way for the things their users post. How did this joke of a lawsuit survive a preliminary motion to dismiss?
The key here is choice.
He chooses to live this way, which is cool for him. As Fight Club said, "the things you own end up owning you" so paring down belongings is appealing to me.
This guy, who doesn't even want to own enough belongings to fill the trunk of a car? Not for me, but more power to him for living the life he wants to live.
Some people want to own all the things, and if they can financially support that lifestyle, more power to them.
The WEF fuckers want to take that choice away from us. They want us all to live like this guy, "for the planet" or some other BS reason. Of course those rich fuckers aren't planning to give up any of the shit they own, that's just for the plebs.
And this goes right in to the equality gibberish that the left is always spouting. Women cannot simultaneously be the equal of men, yet fall victim to "grooming", "coercive control", etc. If men as a sex are presumed to be able to control women just by having stronger willpower, then women are not their equals.
I get that the dude's a certifiable retard at this point. Whether from before his multiple aneurysms or not, it doesn't matter anymore. But Jesus, for all little gophers that they have doing things for senators you can't tell me he doesn't have somebody that can fucking dress him properly.
Exactly. They also lack the ability to comprehends second and third order effects like how taxing a manufacturer or business simply gets passed along to the end consumer in the form of higher prices.
I can't imagine Ian Fleming or the original/real version of James Bond that he wrote having anything positive to say about trannies.
If you read past the underlines, he cares about a lack of diversity in a meeting of all men. LoL. What tripe.
No one in the real world thinks we have a strong economy. It's absolute bullshit to say that prices are up because of increased demand. If anything, demand has been reduced as people tighten their belts to deal with high inflation.
I read the book Shogun years ago, which is about a 1600's Englishman stranded in Japan. One of the major themes is the clash of cultures and values between him and his hosts.
There's a scene that has always registered with me where a merchant has their stall and goods destroyed; I can't remember the cause. The main character tells his translator that this is terrible and she basically replies: "Why? This man produces nothing. He exploits the farmer who grows the food by buying it for a pittance and then marks it up, selling it to us for more than it's worth."
I do believe that the "middlemen" that move goods to market and retail them do provide some value, but it's always annoyed me that no matter the industry, the middlemen always seems to make much more money than the producer.
South Asian store owner
Activists blame the incident on white supremacy
Of course they do, because every incident that includes zero white people is somehow an indication of white supremacy.
What it really is: Someone tries to rob Apu and he lays down the law; just like that dude in the turban beating the guy with a stick in the video that made the rounds recently.
This is the most I have seen of this movie and I'm so glad I didn't bother to watch it.
Harrison Ford and John Rys Davies are just tired and sad looking and there's about zero overlap between Indiana Jones and Fleabag fans, so I have no idea where that woman is in this movie.
Car prowlers are everywhere. I got a ride from the airport from a friend in an uncovered pickup once. He made a stop at a grocery store and I waited in the car to guard my suitcase in the truck bed.
It only took a few minutes before I felt the truck move as somebody started to climb into the bed to steal the suitcase. As soon as he saw me, the dindu jumped back off and started walking away rapidly, head down trying to look totally innocent. If it had been something lighter, he probably would have tried to take it, but there's no way you're escaping from someone dragging a 40 lb suitcase with you.
How do you think she made the video?
No authority is ever going to provide something like that.
I don't know, part of the reason they want the employee to issue the apology this is the employee helps immunize the institution from liability by stating that they acted outside of policy and custom.
There's definitely some negotiating room there e.g. "I'll agree to take the fall and say this is entirely my own misbehavior and in no way reflects company policy, then you can send me to some sensitivity training and I go back to work."
The alternative being: "I'm not apologizing and when you fire me I will agree to testify on behalf of the plaintiff and tell everyone that I felt empowered by the toxic culture that you foster here. In fact my management routinely said racist and made anti-lgbtxyzabc comments to me behind closed doors. Imagine the faces of the jury when I tell them that the principal said he wishes all these faggot kids would just die."
I've worked at jobs where we kept people around simply because it was hard to fire them. We had a girl fucking one of management in the office after hours with sex toys and kept her on in exchange for her rolling over on the manager and providing the statements needed to fire him. Not this exact circumstance, but if you can make the organization feel that they are putting themselves at risk for firing you, they'll take the path of least resistance.
The letters were not written to question the legitimacy of the judicial system, or the validity of the jury’s ruling.
And so what if they were? We have a case here where someone publicly stated that they weren't raped, accepted a cash settlement and then came back years later and said "I was raped". There was absolutely no evidence to corroborate this accusation and the defendant denied it. That alone meets the standard of reasonable doubt in the US legal system.
Then, the judge allowed the prosecution to tell the jury that he drugged women without presenting any evidence in support of it. Everything about this trial undermines the legitimacy of the United States legal system and the validity of the jury's ruling.
I'll never get why people apologize without a guarantee that they will keep their job.
Nobody believes they're actually sorry, we all know they're just doing it in the hopes of not being fired, but given the chance that they'll just fire you anyway and now you lost a bunch of face for apologizing, I would ask for a written guarantee that I keep my job as a condition of me issuing an apology.
This is like a new important thing.
Well, it's not important to me.
Hope it's real.
That was a great link. Who would have thought the government could make buying alcohol so oppressive?
The sad thing is that there was nothing to clarify. It's been understood forever that the government "asking" or "suggesting" that a third party do something converts that party into a government agent, subject to the same restrictions as the government itself.
I'm not trying to minimize the crimes of the crazy tranny murder hobo in any way, but if I parked my car and some weirdo homeless guy was yelling at me, I would get in and drive it somewhere else. It's just common sense not to leave your vehicle alone with someone like that.
That's what the judge called it. Yep, sounds exactly the same as a marriage to me.
Why doesn't Canada just formally declare itself an authoritarian dictatorship and cease the pretense of being a democracy?