Some utter geniuses were saying this was a good thing to put it in the hands of the judiciary when Chevron got overturned. Not sure what they were saying about the judiciary the next day…
In many rural areas it’s not though. Tractor Supply might be the only feed store for miles, and I don’t mean go 5 miles to the next town. I mean it’s over a hundred to the next closest feed store, which happens to be another tractor supply.
Maybe they do, why so negative? Do you think breaking some hypothetical monopoly would be a bad thing or something? Is your last name Supply by chance?
Maybe they do, but they haven’t done it, have they? I know I can’t do it. Can you? It’s not ‘negative’ to know that it hasn’t been done and no one is doing it. It’s just a fact.
Is that your situation? I live pretty rural, but there’s a Walmart, Lowe’s, or home depot pretty much the same distance as tractor supply, and that’s probably the situation for most of the US. I also buy online. Mom and pop feed stores are all over the place.
Thinking about this more, I just don’t think it’s true. I can’t find a spot on Google maps where tractor supply is the only store for miles. In America, you can drive to many shitty corporations to buy stuff, no matter where in America you are.
He’s identified in the article. I think it makes more sense than putting his name in the headline. Nobody knows who “Jonathan whatever” is. We all know what a banker is
Yes, but asking “What does Mark Wahlberg’s fake penis have to do with anything” would let readers know that I’m in on the joke, thus ruining the comedy.
You see, in this example, I’m playing the archetype of the buffoon in which I’m feigning dual confusion: first that John Holmes was a fictional character portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, and second that I believed Mark Wahlberg’s penis in the movie Boogie Nights was real.
Had I used a descriptor noting that Mark Wahlberg’s penis was a prosthetic, I’d be showing more intimate knowledge of the film Boogie Nights, from which one could more easily assume that I also know that John Holmes and Mark Wahlberg are, in fact, two different people.
Perhaps I could have said something like “prosthetic pp” which would have the comedic values of alliteration and immaturity. Certainly, that could have evoked a positive response from viewers, but the role of the buffoon is often not completed until compared to a more anchored character. “Prosthetic pp” would have made my delivery both the comment and the punchline, but by portraying the role of the buffoon and simply referencing “Mark Wahlberg’s penis,” I left the dialog open for someone else to provide comedic input by responding. This means that I not only get to share the limelight with another user, but that readers get to enjoy even more humor by reading the next comment.
For example, @Viking_Hippie chose to put a button on the joke by referencing Mark Wahlberg’s wife, Rhea Durham. This humorous comment could be seen as the final note in our humorous exchange, which began with a humorous retort by @Velonie to @TheFlopster correction of @shalafi common misuse of the word “hung” instead of “hanged.” Although, Viking’s response also left things somewhat open-ended by saying “presumably” and using a shrug emoji; this opening means someone could continue the humor, such as using a classic improv response format of “yes and.” Perhaps another user would like to reply to Viking with something like “presumably nothing, gimme that fat dick!”
Referring back to the archetypes of comedy, you can see how your response would most likely fall under that of the anchor, the neurotic, or the cynic. In this scenario, you’re probably playing the role of the neurotic or the cynic as @FlyingSquid anecdotally mentioned his father, making him either the anchor or the innocent.
You’ll note that this current response to your comment is unlikely to be found on the archetypes of comedy list because I’m currently breaking the fourth wall and am just an asshole. If you’ve read this far, I’m sorry.
I wasn’t trying to win. I’m sorry for sucking the fun out of the joke getting hung up on details. I didn’t know Dirk Digler was based on John Holmes, so thanks for teaching me something new!
If AI has access to your child’s photos, your privacy settings aren’t strict enough. Don’t post pics of your fucking children online, you fucking shitheads.
For the record, I’m willing to bet Apple and Google are training various AI models using photos on your phone, without your consent (or consent burried deep in a ToS.)
Didya really think Apple cared 'bout people having CSAM on their phones/icloud? (it does make an amazing excuse to scan every photograph you’ve ever taken or downloaded, though. any one who balks is immediately now protecting pedophiles. Apple, Google, they’re corporations. their ethics are dictated by the bottom line.) (they’ve since gone to on-device options that attempt to block or intervene if a child sends or receives things that are inappropriate, and offering to point them to an adult.)
I was born well before cellphone cameras were a thing, and there are plenty of pictures of me as a child that are well out of the hands of Apple and Google. They still make cameras. If your child’s privacy is a concern for you (and it should be) just grab a real camera and do it the old fashioned way. Every aspect of our lives doesn’t need to be passed through the cloud.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.