I mean, if we wanted our best and brightest (and most compassionate) to teach, we would pay them the best salary they could get with their degrees.
Note to good teachers out there (I’m a teacher too): I’m not saying there aren’t any! I’m just saying that those doing the hiring can’t afford to be terribly picky.
I’d be easy to vend, I guess. It’s shelf-stable, don’t have to control the temperature of the machine, doesn’t go stale (well, within a reasonable period of time).
But…does it make sense for the buyer?
If you’re going to own a firearm, you should probably practice with it. If you practice with it, you’re probably going to use more than a few rounds in the course of that practice. If you’re going to use more than a few rounds, doesn’t it make more sense to buy in bulk rather than getting a few rounds from a vending machine?
I mean, it seems like getting mini bags of flour or something. It’s not that one can’t do it, but I just don’t understand the use case.
I don’t know. Maybe someone carries their firearm with them (addressing the issue of needing to have the firearm to use the ammo) and then spur of the moment decides to go shooting at a private range (my limited experience has been that public shooting ranges tend to sell supplies at the range if you need something)?
Vending machines work really well when you want something in a small quantity that you’re going to use immediately, and don’t mind paying a premium for it. Especially if you didn’t know that you’d need it in advance or it needs to be refrigerated or something. A cold soda or a bag of peanuts at a trailhead or something, okay, I get that.
But I don’t see how well that works for ammo. Like, it just doesn’t seem to fit all that well with the characteristics of the things that I can think of that do sell well in vending machines.
How much rounds you shoot really depends on what kind of shooting you do and what cartridge your intended on using.
It looks like it sells in normal boxes so I can see someone getting use out of buying a few boxes from it. That said, the fiscally responsible thing to do is buy online in bulk. Ammoseek.com lets you cross compare prices from different retailers.
“In debt over your head?” “Creditors hounding you for your hard-earned money you stole fair and square?”
“Have we the solution for you! Just run for president. Once elected, any past crimes cannot be held against you. And, any future crimes while president, don’t count!”
Every time the bar looks so low there’s no way anybody is getting underneath it, whaddayaknow wouldyoujustlookatthat one of these fuckheads has done it again. Muthafuckin hotwheels ass lookin muthafucka. Sliding under the bar like that.
Wouldn’t it be wierdos, not wierdoes? My autocorrect seems to think so.
Also in the UK, where I’m from, we have standardised testing, when i was a kid the tests were all made by exam boards like AQA, OCR and EdExcel. I believe they still are.
Despite the flaws that come with that it was better than allowing an individual to come up with the test as it removed personal bias and, obviously, derogatory remarks about students in the class.
I call my son a goof when he does something silly! In the UK, it just means silly. The image in my head is of Goofy, the disney character.
Good to know if i ever go to canada.
Also, weirdo is so innocuous in the UK. It wouldn’t turn a head. But then i suppose we call people a “cunt” or a “dickhead” and it can be as friendly as saying “love you” or “you are hilarious” and as nasty as saying “die in a fire”
So i suppose i shouldn’t be surprised by the nuances found in language even if we are speaking the same language, especially when there’s an ocean of space between us.
I’ve lived in a handful of different provinces and have family in basically every region of Canada and I have never heard of goof being used that way. Where did you hear that?
Calling someone a goof is just another way to say they’re being silly/ ridiculous, which I’m pretty sure is the same way it’s used everywhere else.
I suspect there’s nuance or personal nicknames being lost from context here. I strongly doubt a teacher (unless they want to be fired) calls students out like this without prior development of the material.
But I’m sure my take is far too rational for the knee jerk wing of my peers.
I don’t think there’s anything close to room for nuance here. No matter how “friendly” you think you are with your students and how much you think they like you, this is not acceptable behavior from a high school teacher.
Teachers can just be cruel sometimes. Some of my worst bullys in school were teachers. One of my teachers meowed like a cat at my friend in front of the whole class to mock my friend for him meowing.
This guy needs a better outlet for his frustrations. I don’t doubt that teaching high schoolers is a special form of torture (having been a high schooler once upon a time) but test questions are not the place to vent.
I want to believe that these were questions he wrote out in a drunken stupor one night and then printed off the wrong file though doubling down on it with the projector kinda kills that idea. Dude maybe shouldn’t have been a teacher but it took him about a decade too long to figure it out.
He also needs to not be a racist, ablist piece of shit. This goes way beyond venting, this dude believes in ethnic cleansing and shit. I’m surprised there were no phrenology-related questions.
Immigration and inflation are sideshow distractions used to distract from wealth and resource hoarding. NYT editor is just doing his upper class friends a solid by framing these distractions as the main issues
Exactly, every mainstream outlet is owned by billionaires or giant corporations, which is why you don’t hear about wealth inequality or union busting in mainstream media.
In 2016, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation received reports of more than US $220 million being lost by victims of relationship scams.[15] This was approximately seven times what was stolen through phishing scams and almost 100 times the reported losses from ransomware attacks.[15] According to FBI IC3 statistics, the crime has been at an alarming rise. Monetary loss in the United States rose from $211 million to $475 million from 2017 to 2019. The number of cases of reported romance scams rose from 15,372 to 19,473 in those two years.[16][17]
“The FTC estimated on average $2,500 was sent to romance scammers in 2020, more than ten times the median loss across all fraud types. Given the rampant use of social media and rise of online dating services, the opportunity for scammers to prey on individuals is only growing, explained Emma Fletcher, an analyst at the FTC. “To be able to make that connection and do it remotely is something that may not have been possible a decade ago, but it’s very much possible and socially quite common now for people to make love connections online and they’re taking advantage of that,” Fletcher said.”[18]
It really sucks that we’ve become a society full of extremely lonely people who are so desperate that they get conned just looking for some compassion.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.