Write L. Now at the bottom right corner, write A. The top tip of the A should connect to the bottom right corner of L. Now, following the same rules, write O.
Now flip your work upside down and admire your art
Well, she doesn’t get eaten. She plays with fire when her parents are out and burns to death. The cats are just mourning her.
In the same book there are some other interesting children stories like the kid who refuses to eat soup and starves to death. Or the kid who sucks on its thumbs until a tailor comes and cuts them off with huge scissors.
That was hard to read, damn. I can read German quite well, but the font basically makes the capital letters a pure gamble to me. I guess this is a lesson to always listen to speaking cats lol.
Edit: Like “Der Vater hat’s verboten”. “Vater” is written more like “Bater” in this font
The Wikipedia article includes the whole text. Here is the Deepl translation:
The sad story with the lighter. Paulinchen was alone at home, Her parents were both out. As she jumped through the room With light courage and song, Suddenly she saw in front of her A lighter, nice to look at. “Ei,” she said, “ei, how beautiful and fine! That must be a fine toy. I’ll light a little wood for myself, As my mother often did.”
And Minz and Maunz, the cats, Raise their paws. They threaten with their paws: “The father has forbidden it! Meow! Mio! Meow! Mio! Don’t move! Or you’ll catch fire!”
Paulinchen can’t hear the cats! The little stick is burning brightly and brightly, It flickers merrily, crackles loudly, Just as you see it in the picture. But Pauline is very happy And jumped back and forth in the room.
But Minz and Maunz, the cats, Raise their paws. They threaten with their paws: “The mother has forbidden it! Meow! Mio! Meow! Mio! Throw it away! Or you’ll catch fire!” But woe! The flame seizes the dress, The apron burns; it shines far. The hand burns, the hair burns, Even the whole child burns.
And Minz and Maunz, who scream Pitifully in twos : “Come! Come here! Who will help quickly? The whole child is in the fire! Meow! Mio! Meow! Mio! Help! The child is on fire!”
Everything is completely burned, The poor child with skin and hair; A heap of ashes alone remains And both shoes, so pretty and fine.
And Minz and Maunz, the little ones, They sit there and cry: “Meow! Mio! Meow! Mio! Where are the poor parents? Where?” And their tears flow Like a brook in the meadows
I agree, instead of feeling confident an enemy is defeated with the first defense, you should always assume it’s feigning defeat for the next attempt. Money is a huge motivator, you can never feel safe from paid actors they’ll always bleed in through the cracks. Especially when firms see us as something new to leech onto with claims of being untouchable. It’s like we’re taunting them. 😣
No I don’t think it would throw away the teacher, unless you’re an anime character with a power where eye contact teleports people into the closest trash can
Not the one, I’ve download unfortunatly. Here is my main source for kaomoji : kaomoji.ru.
Edit : seems like between yesterday and today the site was taken out of the internet. Thank you for the links 'cause I’m gonna need a remplacement site (T_T)
If you’re normally the slacker you’ll probably get them excited that you look interested so that seems risky lol
Oh, and you’re looking for “throw them off”. As in “I wonder if making eye contact instead of avoiding it would throw them off”. You were close and anyone with a brain cell knows what you meant don’t worry 🤗
Is there a deeper meaning than just that they are all tools to break the ground? I have a feeling there’s a deeper joke but I fail to get it. (non native speaker here)
I don’t care about that. I care about the fact that American soldiers committed fewer murders with Trump as president compared to GWB or Obama as president.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.
The Trump administration’s quiet decision this week to roll back part of an Obama-era transparency rule that mandated reporting of civilian casualties from airstrikes has renewed the stark debate over who dies, and how, in U.S. military action abroad.
—-
Well its pretty convenient to state that your guy didnt kill anyone if he orders the military and government to stop keeping count, now doesn’t it?
Thats like saying you arent broke because you refuse to look at your bank account and see those overdraft notices.
Your government. I don’t care about that. I care about the fact that for a brief period of 4 years American soldiers committed fewer murders around the world.
Trump assassinated an Iranian general, who was largely responsible for the downfall of ISIS. This almost started a war, but for the fact that Iran shot down their own airliner.
You have a source for Trump killing fewer people around the world? Because from what I’ve seen, he killed more. The U.N. says that he killed more people in the middle easy than Obama and ordered more airstrikes.
He wanted to bomb shithole countries and kill terrorists’families but was too inept to know how to actually get it through congress. Painting him like a dove of peace is a weird way to interpret how shit played out
That’s just objectively wrong, but go ahead with the disinformation.
If we consider the Koran War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War, Trump joins Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower in not having officially brought the United States into a new war since 1945. - <a href="">Link</a>reuters.com/…/uk-factcheck-modern-us-presidents-n…
Yeah it’s actually insane that the dude is accusing someone else of spreading misinformation and he’s covering up Syria and Libya. Lmao and people say this community is unbiased…
Fwiw, all he said was that Trump was the first president in his lifetime to not start a new war. If he was born in 2016 or after, this would be correct by default. And judging by the quality of their comment, I wouldn’t put it past them
Obama involved us in Syria and supported the Saudis bombing Yemen.
Clinton got involved in the Balkans.
Reagan funded rebel groups in South America.
Carter… Actually idk anything this far back.
You should listen to Noam Chomsky. He’s very very liberal and has some good criticisms of the US involvement overseas. I don’t agree with everything he says but it’s worth listening to.
Our involvement in Syria was to annihilate ISIS, and was the largest post-WW2 coalition allied against a common enemy. Comsidering that they were about to genocide millions of people amd conquer half the middle east, ill give obama a pass. It would have beat watching LA amd London being actually nuked by terrorists.
“They are trying to prevent any comeback by the Islamic State group, which swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, taking control of large swaths of territory.”
Unless the person you replied to is almost 70 years old, Eisenhower wasn’t president during their lifetime. They’d have to be over 50 for Nixon to have been, 60 for kennedy, 45 for Ford, 42 for Carter.
Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are probably the only ones applicable from your list, and “starting new wars” can be applied to a few of them in terms of the USA becoming infolved, as others have mentioned.
Because much of US politics at the moment is wedge issues. The leadership of both parties agree that Israel has the right to exist, but there’s a split there too. Democrats have started calling out Israel’s excesses with settlers in the West Bank and extremist right wing politics. Meanwhile, Republicans have allied themselves to extremist right wing authoritarian Israel politicians.
I pay for premium because YouTube does video delivery better than anyone else in the world, and it’s not free for them to provide. Lots of things to hate about YouTube/Alphabet, but theft is a corrupt way of expressing discontentment.
Also, if I pay for premium, then content creators get paid, and I don’t have to shell out for merch to not feel like a terrible person.
I imagine if it doesn’t make sense to you already, I won’t be able to help you understand, but here goes anyway.
A company pays a lot of money to have a service developed and hosted, then offers a paid teir, and an ad supported teir. If you neither pay, nor watch ads, yet still use the service, then the company is incurring fees due to your usage while receiving no revenue for providing the service.
Like, YouTube videos are great. Practically a utility at this point. However YouTube, the platform, is a company not a charity; if you cost them money, while providing $0 revenue, you’re stealing their money.
Personally I don’t think theft is justified outside extreme desparation (stealing food, basically), and given that YouTube gives you an option that does not require giving them money I find it hard to justify stealing bandwidth.
YouTube voluntarily chooses to still provide their service to me when I block ads. They could easily block that. But they don’t. They don’t even ban my account when I log in with an ad blocker and they still let me upload videos and publish them. Is it theft if someone hands something to you without a threat of force and you take it?
If YouTube started banning Adblockers they’d end up with really bad PR and an arms race, neither of which would sound terribly appealing (although I predict this is a policy change in the works already).
The problem with account bans is that, unlike steam accounts, YouTube accounts have no value associated with them. You ban one and another one pops up.
If I went to the drive through, and they handed me a coffee and said “that’ll be $3. Would you like to pay with cash? or points?” And I just drove off, they wouldn’t chase me over it, but it is absolutely still theft.
Listen, if you want to pirate content, go ahead, I can’t stop you, and it’s not like I haven’t done it myself, but don’t lie to yourself.
You skipped the part where, upon purchasing YouTube, Google used their infinitely deep pockets to deliberately run all other video hosting services, and there were several, out of business and create a monopoly. I’m not going to question my morals over blocking ads from a company that itself is morally bankrupt.
The user should always be in control of the 1s and 0s entering their computer. Allowing some data and not allowing others is not theft. It’s not all-or-nothing for which data Google sends me and recieves from me, that’s absurd.
This abstraction doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Of course you’re in charge of your computer, but just because you’re free to choose a certain option, doesn’t make it moral, or legal. Using a companys service and making a special effort to withhold payment then saying “it’s not theft, they’re totally cool with it” is absurd. Why would they be cool with that?
I don’t care of they’re cool with it, I’ll use my computer how I want to. Google makes hundreds of billions in annual revenue, it’s hard to feel bad for them. Calling that theft is a massive stretch, they are not losing anything except for potential profit, you could argue bandwidth but that is so intangible compared to any kind of physical theft.
Keep in mind with adblocking we’re dealing with fractions of a penny per video and Google is still making money off me regardless. I directly support creators I like, sending them $10 is an order of magnitude more money than they would get over a lifetime of me watching ads.
you could argue bandwidth but that is so intangible compared to any kind of physical theft.
Have you ever paid hosting fees? Digital != Intangible.
Its up to you to decide what kinds of theft you’re ok with. I definitely pirate things, but I don’t lie about it and say it’s not theft. I just accept that sometimes I’m the bad guy.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.