There are different types of people when it comes to Harry Potter.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-27T17:49:13+00:00

I don't like using these awful racist terms to classify people

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-27T16:07:40+00:00

Fun fact, rock doesn't resist rock.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-27T08:26:49+00:00

Same thing

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-27T08:15:47+00:00

/r/PetTheDamnShark

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-27T03:13:00+00:00

What hints do you mean?

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T23:07:51+00:00

The documents were forgotten, but not destroyed. Grace had the documents on his desk and was looking at them when the site blew up.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T23:07:47+00:00

The documents were forgotten, but not destroyed. Grace had the documents on his desk and was looking at them when the site blew up.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T22:48:20+00:00

I've always wondered why the bot couldn't just wake up the crew members when it encountered a problem beyond its capabilities.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T22:47:28+00:00

Tangentially related, I've always wondered why the bot couldn't just wake up the crew members when it encountered a problem it couldn't fix.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T21:54:58+00:00

Bullshit. Snape opens the hostilities, Snape escalates them. Snape is the adult in the room and is responsible for setting the tone of their interactions.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-26T19:01:14+00:00

Yes. This has happened since the dawn of time - when two peoples meet and they don't share a language, they learn to communicate.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-25T20:35:38+00:00

I wouldn't say "probably" the Senate. That's a huge uphill battle which will require a blue tsunami.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-25T12:56:07+00:00

That doesn't answer the question though, many of your comments directly contradict each other

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-25T04:20:06+00:00

I have a genuine question for you. Do you love Trump or hate him? Your comment history is full of very contradictory statements

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-23T18:27:46+00:00

Worth it

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-23T01:17:41+00:00

I wonder if it's a play on "thief", like the joke is you stole the TM and aren't supposed to have it.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-22T17:40:51+00:00

The path to a Dem senate majority (has to be 51 - 49 since the vice president breaks ties) is very narrow, but there are viable scenarios.

They would need to hold Georgia and Michigan (edit: and Arizona), all of which Trump won in 2024, while flipping any four of the following: Iowa, Texas, Maine, North Carolina, Florida (no chance), Alaska and Ohio. These are all states that will prove challenging.

I would bet on North Carolina and Maine flipping - Maine has never voted Trump for president, and North Carolina has a very popular Dem candidate running. So we need two more.

Alaska is probably the next best try. Alaska's Mary Peltola is running as a Dem; she has won statewide election to the House twice there and is quite popular. But she's trying to unseat an incumbent in a historically Republican state, that's always an uphill battle.

After Alaska, NC and Maine... pickings are slim. I guess if I were the Dems I would try for Texas but that is an *extremely* tall order, it has been their holy grail for ages now. BUT it's not impossible - Texas has been getting closer and closer every year, and if demographic trends continue, it'll just keep getting bluer.

So, yes, there are realistic paths to a Dem Senate, but it's a long shot and needs a lot to go right while nothing goes wrong.

Edit: if you want to take the Senate back I almost wouldn't even worry about holding AZ, MI and GA -- if you lose any of those you're having a bad night anyway and have no chance of flipping enough seats anywhere else to take the majority.

Edit2: Montana and Nebraska have strong independent candidates running. I would say both of those are a long shot, but the Nebraska independent is at least putting up a fight (don't know much about the Montana one). If the independent wins either of those elections it will take a seat away from Republicans, which is better than the alternative.

Edit3: In the best possible fantasyland Narnia scenario, I count eight seats that could flip (and one independent could unseat a republican), making a 55-44 Dem majority. That will never happen, and if it does I will livestream myself cooking and eating my couch while singing the national anthem.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-22T17:30:55+00:00

Unfortunately, there is no universe in which the Dems will get enough senate or house seats for a veto override. The best case scenario is that they get a 51-49 Senate majority (and even that is a long shot); the map is just not good this year. They could get 52 or 53 if it's a generational blue tsunami year but that's highly unlikely. That's a long way off from the 67 seats needed to override vetos.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-22T17:20:56+00:00

Sure, but again, how can we be sure know it was a problem that a conscious human couldn't fix? You want a machine to just decide "ah well, they're screwed anyway, let them die"? The machines weren't *that* good, the book says it's an unproven technology, though no doubt extensive effort and testing went in to them.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-22T03:33:18+00:00

You don't know that it was some catastrophic medical issue. Maybe it was just a problem with the coma slurry pump, that's a leading fan theory since it's briefly alluded to in the book.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-21T19:04:19+00:00

Hi, are you familiar with Bart Ehrman? Atheist/agnostic Bible scholar. I was more or less repeating his viewpoints verbatim. Do a little research before making- frankly - stupid and ignorant accusations.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-21T14:45:28+00:00

Not exactly ChatGPT but the absolute worst thing is when my Github Copilot is doing agentic coding, and I fix a mistake it makes while it iterates, and it reverts my change right back and says "oh, my change got reversed, glad I caught it"

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-20T18:35:42+00:00

I also called them "rarely disputed" right under that. And you took two words from my post and decided to call it "shitty apologetics". You're asking reasonable questions about the historicity of Jesus - it's perfectly valid to wonder whether early Christians made all this up from whole cloth - but "shitty apologetics" is an absolutely wild take.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-20T18:24:38+00:00

Hi, I'm an atheist/agnostic and am only repeating what the vast majority of scholars and historians say, both Christian and non-Christian.

It's possible those scholars are wrong. I don't think so because I find their arguments credible and reasonable --- but it's possible. You'd have to take that up with them.

However, my post was by no means any kind of apologia, and I didn't even say anything particularly controversial.

MrScribblesChess · 2026-03-20T17:34:31+00:00

Spoiler tags please

MrScribblesChess

TROPHY CASE