As an American, I cannot legally touch any egg that hasn’t been ultra-pasteurized followed by continuous cold chain refrigeration and served in either a Styrofoam or pulped paper cardboard egg carton.
Sorry your yard is so small. Mine is large enough that the chicken coop is far away from the house and is usually not a bother. Summertime when the wind is just wrong can be an annoying stench, but it’s almost nothing compared to the smell of dumpsters in a big city during summer heat.
As a side note, if your chicken coop smells like a crashed ammonia tanker you need to add more carbon in the coop. Dead leaves, cardboard, shredded wood or wood chips are working well.
Let’s not pretend the acquisition and upkeep of chickens is free… if you eat a lot of eggs it is absolutely worth it, but there is some cost in setting up a coop, getting chickens, keeping chickens fed and safe from predators, disease, etc.
Plus you have to have property to keep them on and be allowed to have them on your property. For most Americans that isn’t possible due to lack of home ownership or HOA restrictions on what animals you can have on “your” property. (HOAs are bullshit)
A lot of banks have bootcamps where they pick up unemployed people who might not have ever had tech experience in their life. They teach them COBOL and mainframe basics in a few months, and, if they do well, give them a shitty $60k annual job.
Source: know someone who went to one of these bootcamps and now works for a major us bank.
Oh, no, educated workers who don’t want to be taken advantage of and know their worth, maybe companies should value their employees if you want company loyalty.
Oh no, job providers who don’t want to be taken advantage of and know their worth, maybe people should value their job providers if you want their loyalty.
spoilerMy time on Lemmy (and Reddit before) ironically make me appreciate communism less and less
I code one feature for my job in a sprint and it becomes a value generator for a decade, making the companies hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
Software developers create value out of thin air for companies, value that management and leadership is unable to generate.
There are some court cases going on right now about this type of thing. Generally, the payback is only allowed to be for the real cost of training, and only for a few years. So that 60k salary for 3 years is also the right amount to make you worth 150k anywhere else.
This has been going on for decades. My dad became a COBOL programmer in 1980ish after taking an aptitude test in answer to a newspaper ad. Y2K consulting was a pretty good gig.
Electric cars don’t solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they’re certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn’t possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it’s horribly inefficient).
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.
I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.
I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.
Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.
Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:
I’m huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.
As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I’ll push them into getting EVs if what they’re doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to “is this for roadtrips”, because then maybe hybrid is better.
Which is why again I say it’s a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.
They say, as I know people in the midwest who commute 1.5 hours each way to the city for their job and then turn around and drive home. I have a friend who lives in a town of no shit, 400 people.
There’s no bus that goes there. It’s 30 miles from the nearest “city” of 15,000, and he works another 20 miles past that.
You can survive without cars
Sure, they’ll just not eat, not work, and not do anything. Dude I’m all for urbanization and adding mass transit, but you’re going to be hard pressed to add rail routes or even bus routes to not just that one town of 400, but all the other thousands of tiny towns. Hell even the town of 15,000 doesn’t have a rail route. Hell even the state capital is missing a rail route. Let alone commuter options.
I’m not saying America is an exception, I’m saying you’re naive for thinking your one opinion will work for everyone, and that the problem is more nuanced then you understand.
That’s why I brought up Cali HSR. It’s been over a decade of planning and building that, and that’s connecting two of the largest cities in the country, and you’re just casually saying “Just build it everywhere”. Like yes we want that too, but the realities of building that would be centuries of work.
China is unmovable by vehicle at all such that their failure of a mass transit system is trying busses on stilts.
Japan is tiny. I mean very tiny minuscule area of land.
Most of EU has no such thing. You are assuming it EU is Germany, France, and Belgium. PS, all the actual Countries (which EU isn't one) in the EU are tiny.
Size is a factor in cost and that is the real reason most Countries have no such thing as viable mass transit for the majority of their citizens. Paving sold cars and cars made corporations lots of money. Mass transit does the opposite and is thus objected to by same corpos.
China has a working HSR system connecting all their major cities. The fact that their population scale is so massive means they also try weird shit to get what they can.
Japan is very narrow but it’s also very long. The actual amount of miles a train much cover from one end to the other is very large.
Yes the EU is not one country (though it is a polity). That should make it harder, not easier to cover it with rail, and yet there’s rail lines connecting all the major cities crossing national borders. Does the “size” counter reset once you cross a line on the map?
It’s not the size, it’s the political organization. You even hint at this when describing how we paved America: the political and economic configuration was aligned to make it happen despite the massive cost. The USA was crisscrossed by passenger rail and street cars, and still is for cargo. We just took a different path later, but it doesn’t actually have to be that way.
Absolutely doesn’t, and we should push them to bring back rail, but that will take a very very long time to build. Even major cities are missing rail links, they would need huge infrastructure to add it there, and then smaller links for the teeny tiny towns. We should do both - invest in good public transit, and also embrace stopgap measures.
We can both say “EVs are the solution for now” and also do things like “No new lanes will be added unless rail is considered first”
Public transit is cheaper and more accessable. It would be quite easy to make it profitable. Private transportation is more expensive both on the production side and infrastructure side. The auto industry did a lot of scummy shit in order to make it profitable. In the US, they bought up and shut down just about every public transport corp in order to force the public to buy cars and force the state to build infrastructure.
If you’re aiming for a huge change anyway (buying new EVs for everyone, installing chargers everywhere) why not consider the other one - adding more transit and bike lanes? It’s not an easy shift either way - but one involves various unknowns and unforeseen difficulties. The other has been put to use across the world already.
Because we have people spread out all across a massive landscape in the USA, it’s not ever likely to be feasible to build public transport to reach everyone. No, we don’t all live in the big cities and we never will.
Personal transportation will always be a necessity for Americans, except for those who choose to live inside large cities that do have public transport. EVs with Sodium ion batteries would vastly improve our emissions and eliminate the problem with sourcing Lithium batteries’ minerals.
What do you mean “not ever likely to build public transport”? That is literally how the West was first settled, and the reason many of those towns exist. We already had train networks, and abandoned them only because of car trendiness.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns - even if they exist a long way from cities, they’re still generally walkable (because of the low traffic volume in the area). Any place where each individual home and store has been spread out such that literally every trip for any purpose necessitates private transport is just forcing its own worst-case scenario and would benefit from a redesign either way. As long as there’s any kind of civic center with a few stores, it becomes reasonably practical to at least have a bus route.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns
Haha, I’ve lived that life for about 80% of 4 decades already in several small towns and out in the woods far from town. Public transport is mostly non-existent, and people live all over the place where there is nothing but a narrow winding road with no sidewalks. It’s generally only the city center where the buildings like courthouses and banks are located that are walkable in the average American small town. Basically there’s no option but cars for these small towns.
When you go on about how they should all be built up into an urban paradise with sidewalks and buses and trains going everywhere, it overlooks the fact that we already don’t keep up the infrastructure that we have well enough. There is no money to just rebuild everything into the version you imagine would be ideal.
That sounds like the most backward design even of a rural area. This is not a dichotomy between cities and towns complete with pedestrian bridges and electric crosswalks, it’s also about planning that amounts past random, long-distance scattering of destinations.
I’m trying to even understand how you claim those towns become unwalkable, since that’s not due to lack of development - it’s a matter of overdevelopment of roads with wide lanes. A small grid of old buildings with dirt between them is perfectly walkable. If someone built those stores 4 miles apart from each other all in different directions, then even for car users that’s a design failure.
If you insist there is no money to develop anything in those towns or re-plan the environment, that’s an unfortunate diagnosis for the area, but that also means EVs won’t work there because of lack of charging infrastructure, and the town will die out since nothing is being maintained. Let’s keep the discussion to just places that at least have enough money to reconsider their 8-lane stroads.
That’s unfortunately the truth in most American rural towns. Take my town and their grocery store. My town back in the day apparently had a great town square, vibrant, very walkable. Over the years it’s become more delapidated due to neglect, and businesses don’t want to open there. Our grocery store left the downtown area so they could build a new one on the outskirts of town. People love it, it’s bright, big, huge even, and of course, plenty of parking. So they think it’s an absolute win. Except it’s not. It was the town’s only grocery store and now rather than having a walkable store from all the houses in town, everyone now gets in their car and drives 2 miles out of town, parks in the massive parking lot, and walks inside.
This is how commercial has all happened in small towns. It’s left the downtown which you’re right, would be very walkable, and has moved outside of town. On top of that, it’s extremely anti-pedestrian, so even if there would be a bus added eventually, it would still require walking 1/4 mile from the bus stop across a parking lot just to get to the entrance of one of the stores.
The entire thing is ridiculous, and you’re right for not understanding it. The only way it makes sense is if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that “it’s better that I get to get into my car, drive 2 miles, and pick up my groceries, put them all in my car, drive 2 miles home, then bring them all inside”
I will say EVs do work there, and it’s not because of charging infrastructure, but because everyone forgets that you can charge your car at home. Most residents are single family homes with 2, 3, hell even 4 car garages. Each space could have a charger, and every home could have solar added. Places like grocery stores can add chargers. In that small town we (for some reason) had 6 gas stations for our 15k people. They could be mandated to add some chargers, but even then, if everyone charged at home it’s like leaving your house on a full tank every day. Very few people seem to think that way.
Transit is by far the superior option, but we’re talking decades, centuries to hook up these small towns. In the short term, EVs will lower our dependence on fossil fuels at least.
My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.
Slightly less efficient, but I think I’m more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it’s just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we’re gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren’t installing charging stations.
It’s a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it’s not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially “replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge”, there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it’s lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.
My issue isn’t with adding electric to a gas car. My issue is adding gas to an electric car.
The ICE drive train adds a TON of complexity to an EV. If you’re gonna add ICE to an EV I think that it makes more sense to have a little range-extender generator, which is simple and cheap (because it only needs to run at a single RPM and constant load) which you can just run to add a bit more charge to your battery on long road trips.
But ideally we’d just have better charging infrastructure.
This is often repeated and very damaging misinformation. An EV powered purely by coal is significantly better for the environment than an ICE car over its lifetime. This is because coal fired power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines due to economies of scale, even after taking into account transmission losses.
It’s more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation. A lot of the times I see people trying to back this one up, it’s with Hawkins et al.'s Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles paper. A 2012 study that analyzes emissions based on manufacturing and energy production capabilities of the time doesn’t hold up well over a decade later.
You would think that would be obvious, but ¯_(ツ)_/
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date. But this is good to know. Definitely a step in the right direction even if more diversified public transportation options are better
Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?
“Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one” is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I’d love to hear it
After 8 years you’re getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not “just because”. But even in your example, it’s a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.
I can’t even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don’t start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don’t understand why people here don’t realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I’m not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that’s important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus
People don’t run into issues for 11-14 years? You’re assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You’re entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.
I’m assuming nothing now other than this sub must be overrun by car salespeople. You all are insufferable. The average age of a used car being bought is 6years old, not 11-14. Also, no one is taking issue with the carbon footprint of buying used cars. That’s not the point of this post. Buying and maintaining a used car is a wonderfully conservative practice. People aren’t buying used electric cars (by and large). The point here the OP is making is that it’s better from a carbon footprint standpoint to not trade up to an electric (typically new car) than to keep an existing ICE car at least until it nears end of life. That is a factually accurate statement that all of you car sales people apparently are upset about.
Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.
None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.
But by selling there old car more people can affort to buy a newer cars and fade out old cars wich overall is going to decrease carbon emissions because newer cars are on average more fuel efficent.
People aren’t just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn’t viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That’s why this post is stupid, it’s acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.
This reminds me of the story about some old dude’s dog that always shits on my neighbor’s sidewalk. One day neighbor saw that and run to that guy with scary look on his face. He started scolding old guy that he should clean after his dog and old guy respond he’s too old to do that, his back hurt and stuff. The dog saw the whole thing and in a shame he just ate his own shit so poor old man didn’t have to clean it up.
We’ve been screaming about it for 20+ years now and no one seems to be listening.
I’m hoping that someone will tie digital ownership rights to a block chain sooner or later and offer me movies, music, games and books that I can actually own resale rights to - but as publishers are already drinking from the rent-seeking model teat where every single license is a new sale I’m not terribly optimistic about that particular future.
Keep it in your hard drive and carry it with you, this was not a hard problem 20 years ago, but we’re being conditioned to regression in expectations and functionality. Better than yet another blockchain overkill and works offline.
PS: just like the creeptobros say: “not in your disk, not your file.” or something like that.
Adding blockchain into the mix changes nothing. Whether your digital ownership is stored in their centralized database or a distributed database, they still have control over everything because they’re the ones streaming it to you. They can just as well block your access & block resale.
The only way to actually digitally own something is to have a full DRM-free copy of it (ianal though this still might not be enough to allow resale).
Adding blockchain into the mix changes nothing. Whether your digital ownership is stored in their centralized database or a distributed database, they still have control over everything because they’re the ones streaming it to you. They can just as well block your access & block resale.
So you push digital goods to a robust public platform like IPFS and tie decryption to a signed, non-revokable, rights token that you own on a block chain. It’s a transparent and consumer friendly model compared to what we accept now. I know people are over block chain hype but this type of publishing model is where it’s actually useful.
Transferable digital rights tokens and chain of custody are places where block chain tech actually works.
Edit: People seem really hung up on crypto as currency which I’m not asking for at all. I’m asking for control, ownership and resale rights to digital goods I’ve paid for which isn’t possible at all on current digital publishing platforms. I appreciate that people hate crypto shit, that’s fine, but at least read the content you’re replying to.
Fuck no. I ain’t paying a transaction fee each time I want to take a breath. If you don’t want to be robbed by streaming companies, blockchain is the last (or maybe not even a) thing you should consider as a solution.
This doesn’t make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn’t sell?
Blockchain doesn’t fix anything new here, there’s no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.
Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it’s not profitable for them. It’s not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve
it’s quite fun to see the whole thing you want to engineer just to have an excuse to use a blockchain.
Have you ever heard of Torrents? USENET? eDonkey? Those things are more resilient than your blockchain, they’ve proved themselves by being around more than 20 years and still in use.
So you push digital goods to a robust public platform like IPFS and tie decryption to a signed, non-revokable, rights token that you own on a block chain.
What you describe is fundamentally impossible. In order to decrypt something you need a decryption key. Put that on the blockchain and anyone can decrypt it.
Even if you can, pirates would only need to buy a single decryption key and suddenly your movie might as well be freely available to download. Pirates never pay hosting fees because it’s using the same infrastructure as customers and they can’t be taken down because they’re indistinguishable from customers.
Right, either you have the file on your computer, or you don’t. You still can’t legally resell the file because that’s piracy. Computer files can be copied pretty much endlessly.
Publicly or corporately owned cars are not the solution. A more robust public transportation system is the solution. Busses and trains are so much more efficient than cars.
Agreed that majority transport should be shared&public but smaller personalized transport will still be needed (eg a doctor being called to an emergency)
I could also see a system of self driving cars (not trucks but very small city cars) as a kind of public uber. Kind of like how gondolas work in some mountain cities. And of course just one per let’s say 10 or more people as opposed to 1 or more cars per family like we have now.
Yup, sounds reasonable to me. All we need for that is to make sure that greedy capitalists don’t end up using people’s lack of cars to exploit them with absurd prices and privacy violations.
I’m really tired of hearing “you don’t own it you own a license to it” like it’s some revelation for people complaining. We’re aware that the system has been constructed to benefit media companies at the expense of consumers.
To be honest; I never really bought the argument anyway. From a legal standpoint I don’t give half a shit. From a layman’s standpoint it’s bullshit. Nowhere do they use terms like “rent” or “lease”. They explicitly use terms like “buy” and it’s not until the fine print that the term license even comes up.
They know they’re pissing on you and telling you it’s raining and the goobers doing their legwork by repeating the sentence like they just came up with it annoy me to no end.
Nowhere do they use terms like “rent” or “lease”. They explicitly use terms like “buy” and it’s not until the fine print that the term license even comes up.
This! It really should be illegal to present something with the phrasing “buy” unless it is provided to you via a license that prevent it from being withdrawn. To “sell” cloud hosted media without having the licensing paperwork in place for it to be a sale is fraud.
Yeah, I understand that hearing the same simple explanation of “you don’t own it…” gets to be annoying. Especially in places like this where most people are pretty well aware of the situation.
The primary issue seems to be that enough people support this type of service willingly for the sake of convenience and are generally ignorant to the potential long-term issues. It feels pretty exploitative as a consumer.
But I don’t see how making the distinction between ownership of the content vs the license is providing legwork for those services. In my mind, that distinction is key for understanding that the service is not for me. And I may just be looking at this too optimistically, but I would hope the same would be true for users who don’t read the fine print, or happen to have not understood the issue until something like this post is presented.
Not the collective ownership of everything, just the collective ownership (and eventual abolition) of private property, which differs from personal property in that they are assets which are used for the purpose of capital accumulation (e.g factories, real estate, farms, supermarkets, etc.)
Graf is probably better than ever now, shame it's not as long lasting was in Rome. Hopefully some of the best artists pick up sculpting so people in the future might have a little taste.
Digital pictures of their work last indefinitely, just saying
Edit: To everyone mentioning that digital photos aren’t guaranteed to last forever, yup: That’s what indefinitely kinda means. There is no guarantee. Could last another day because the medium the only copy was stored on failed, or it could last for thousands of years because it was properly backed up in a lossless format.
Given the greentext origin, I wonder if his wife was the first woman to give him the time of day and the dynamics of their relationship consist of him fearing that she might leave and he’ll revert to incelhood
Maybe a company that has (mostly) made consoles isn’t exactly playing games or has people on staff on the executive level that play(ed) on a PC. I’m 30 and outside of a brief time I tried to play on a PC I’ve pretty much been console my entire life. My first gaming experiences were all on console. It’s completely logical for a company to make a move like this when they have specialized in one area for a time.
As someone who rehosts an old game after the official servers shutdown, we have a dedicated servers for cheating and real moderators for the non-cheat ones. It works great but big corps don’t way to pay for mods.
I also wonder why big companies don’t do it to train ML algorithms on the cheat server data too…
Only if you want to cap the skill limit. Otherwise you would typically have a hand full of players that are genuinely just good or rather far outside the normal skill range. I guess with a lot of data collection one might be able to determine if there was some kind of natual progress or sudden skill jumps, but all in all it could weed out legitimate players.
I’d have a bit more symphaty if they at least tried to do the bare minimum before choosing the nuclear option.
Most notably, the PVE queues in LoL were infested with bots for years and you could tell them apart from real players before they even made their first move. Often times you’d be the only human player. If stuff like that wasn’t caught, I have serious doubts about their previous efforts to catch “real” cheaters.
Also there could (and should?) be “simply” two launch options. One with “hardcore anti cheat” and one with some much simpler anti-cheat. Then a lobby option what you want to allow. You want to play competitive/league/whatever? Then require the hardcore anti-cheat. Otherwise: why bother.
Yup. At the very least, they shouldn’t have made it a requirement for TFT. If it were possible to cheat there that’d be more of a game design problem anyway.
Honestly I’d rather have a cheater in my lobby than Riot Games deep into the sections of my PC they should never have accessed.
With that said, I do not play Valorant for this reason (and also because it would require me to dualboot since Vanguard cannot be ported on Linux, lol)
I’d be somewhat ok with Kernel anticheat if they would work, but the simple truth is that they do nothing of value. COD has Kernel anticheat with Riccochet and is flooded with cheaters. Valorant has only slightly less cause riot updates Vanguard more often.
But guess what, it usually takes 1-2 days for new cheats to reach the relevant forums, maybe a few days more until they are more widely aviable. At most cheaters have to spend another 5€ every 6 months, but that’s it. They don’t care, the amount of money spent on accounts every other month is already way higher.
The only two things anticheat like vanguard protects you from is script kiddies that google “valorant cheat .exe” and Linux only players. And the former could just as well be filtered out without Kernel level.
It’s all a fucking smokescreen. Man, people just eat that shit up. Every time. It’s almost like the game is saturated in satire and we’re spooning it down ourselves.
They are used to playstation players who buy a console for twice the price it's worth through discord bots. I don't think they even know what a backlash is
Nowadays a console is just a locked down, less expensive pc. I think buying the components of a ps5 and assembling the pc is more expensive than just buying a console and liberating it, which is what I would do if I was to ever buy one.
which is why the steam deck was such a breath of fresh air, it’s what consoles SHOULD be.
A computer built primarily for gaming, sold at a reasonable price, that merrily lets you switch to desktop mode and launch excel for some office work if you want to.
I work in training and development and almost had a stroke today when someone showed me some new material for new hires that essentially said, ‘to get promoted you should volunteer to do more work’. Uh, no. We’re not asking people to work for free, take that out. Forget it ever existed. Fucks sake.
After having worked in Texas a few years, the food is waaay worse there. (A few places in Dallas Deep Ellum were good, and I never made it to Austin, but on average, but great).
Yes, those are countries, not single states within a country. Different things.
edit: ya’ll are acting so fucking weird in this comment thread. Jesus Christ I don’t even give a shit about the size of America or the US/EU pissing contest, I was merely and correctly pointing out the non-equivalence of the items being compared. Holy shit get a fucking life if you give two shits about the topic itself, goddamn. The hate boner some of you have for one country or another to the point of spite downvoting and intentionally misinterpreting shit is fucking ridiculous.
New York to Hawaii can be a 13 hour flight depending on the Island you wanna land on. Alaska to Miami is similar and even drivable. Fairbanks to Miami is a brisk 77 hour drive.
Yes, how is this relevant? The point is they were comparing the length of time to cross a single American state to the time to cross an entire country, which are two different things. Driving through Texas isn’t equivalent to driving through Germany, it’s equivalent to driving through Bavaria.
Ah, in that case, no, you’re still wrong and we are not anything like the EU, not really. The of autonomy and sovereignty each member of the EU has is vastly different, and mostly vastly greater, than that of each of the individual states of America. Again, the correct equivalence isn’t America = EU, it’s America = Germany and Texas = Bavaria. Hope that helps.
It is because most of the EU participates in an agreement without hard borders and is united by a larger entity that collects taxes and holds elections in its states/countries.
The degree of federalism is higher in the USA than Europeans think it is. After all, each American state has at least one army.
About your edit, that’s why I added the disclaimer on my first comment lol. I fully knew it would degenerate in a biggest dick contest and wanted to avoid being part of it.
In addition to the other comment about it being a single state within the US, we’re also talking about roughly 1500-1600 kilometers in the Texas map. It would mostly be 70-75mph (120kph) highways the whole way.
My question is how much of that is highway travel and/or straight? In the Texas map most of that travel will be highways at 80mph. I know Germany has the autobahn but living in Colombia has made me suspicious of long travel times which actually have short distances traveled since this country is very mountainous and I don’t think a straight road exists here.
Just for funsies I looked it up and Miami FL to Seattle WA is a 48 hour drive. Longest I found within the continental US upon a quick googling of recognizable cities.
Thats a bit more than the Alaska to Miami drives I found. I think there one where you can drive all the way to an arctic research base in a similar timeframe.
I tried Brazil. Got 79h going East to West from Recife to Cruzeiro do Sul and 90h going South to North from Chuí to Oiapoque. Granted, our roads aren’t the best but you’re still looking at over 5000km of travel either way.
Depends where you’re starting in Alaska most likely. There are major areas that are not connected to the rest of North America by road, only boat/ferry where Google might not include that.
If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Who ever said anything about sheep? But it’s fifty shekels anyway. Damn inflation!
Idk man, fucking a bar of soap, clearly on the reg , and leaving it for the world to see is a bit different. Plus I feel like most dildo users have the presence of mind to put that shit up when they’re done.
That was made that way for the joke. How would you even begin fucking a flat bar of soap? Even pre-drilled, it would wear out too fast to be any fun.
Don’t use conditioner guys!!!
For the 4th time (I’m an idiot) I got serious dick issues. Don’t know if it dries the skin out or what, but the end gets hypersensitive, turns dark red, skin turns black and peels off, hurts like hell, and then you get nice, new pink skin. It’s painful and revolting and takes about a week for the whole process.
Thought was just me until I saw a reddit post a few months back. LOTS of dudes experiencing the same exact thing.
Ball hair is mostly nonexistent. But here come more conditioner tips!
Decided to get nice and clean for my ex-wife. Showered and used a little conditioner on the meat puppet. She stuck it in her mouth and made a face. “Tastes like shampoo!”
That woman could pop the balloon on the sexiest of times. Ever had a lover so tacky as to complain, in the moment?! Not like, “Move a little.”, or “Ouch, not like that.” More like… Know what? Not gonna relive that foul woman.
If the context didn’t provide, I meant jacking off. Paddling the pink canoe. Abusing the wicked stick. Battling the purple-headed yogurt slinger. Shaking hands with the milkman. Boxing the one-eyed champ. Taking the self-guided tour.
Seeing to yourself? Tossing your salad? Clearing the pipes? Sopping your tissues? Summoning Spiderman? Switching to manual? Burping the serpent? Don’t know it.
Even if you accidentally use conditioner instead of lube, there’s no way it will make the skin of your dick turn black and fall off. It’ll irritate your skin sure, but that won’t happen.
One of two things must actually actually be happening…
You’re using the conditioner lube to fuck something like sandpaper or a sex toy that is literally set on fire
You’ve confused conditioner with something like lye or hydrochloric acid
When my sister and I lived with my parents our shower broke for a bit so we had to use my parents’ shower for a few days. Guess who forgot to take their dildo out of there… It was my sister not me but lucky for her and unlucky for me, my parents never clarified so they’ll just think what they will.
Rubbing soap on any part of your body in a way that simulates sex is not “safe”… Especially if that area is your junk.
Edit: when you make a comment of which you can speak on with authority and then a bunch downvotes come because it offended someone’s hypothetical ideal. You guys are worse than /r/the_donald.
I don’t see how masturbating with soap has any increased risk of soap in the urethra than normal washing. Especially when you wash yourself everyday. It would also matter on how often you do it. If you’re jerking it with soap every time you jerk it yeah you increase the likelihood but if it’s a once in a while thing it would be a negligible increase in odds.
I can’t believe I just put that much thought into jerking it with soap.
Men have a similar, although not as sensitive, environment under their foreskin as women do, so it’s not just the urethra that is the issue. That being said, the consequences of that are usually limited to itchiness and a smell, and not a full-blown infection.
You should wash under there with lukewarm water or, if you absolutely feel the need to, gentle soap that is specifically made for cleaning your privates. Doing it with regular soap can cause issues.
Source: Have foreskin, washed with soap, talked with doctor.
I’ve covered that aspect already in other comment chains.
Also this picture is clearly a joke. You wouldn’t be able to actually use that to masturbate as the hole would grow rapidly. You’d have to lather your hands first using either bar or liquid soap.
Yeah jamming your dick into a solid bar of soap is gonna cause a lot of issues. The one I’d imagine being the first to worry about is your dick getting bruised cause bar soap ain’t exactly soft
lemmy.world
Top