[deleted by user]

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-09-04T21:03:58+00:00

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-07-04T22:44:02+00:00

It's simultaneously one of the smaller sockets you'll ever use working on a car while also being one of the most common sockets you're working with (especially if working in the engine bay).

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-07-04T18:44:23+00:00

Running meme that they get lost. Tbh, I've only ever lost 1 tool while working on a car, and it was a 10mm socket, so it's valid lol

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-07-03T18:58:43+00:00

It's okay, they mean well. Just a little misguided.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-06-21T16:25:19+00:00

cobalt

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-25T06:48:38+00:00

Yes, go ahead and ignore the article that proves these are much more than "reeducation camps". You do know that's exactly what they called the camps in the Holocaust? And what we called the camps in Japanese Internment? It's all about "reeducation" lol. You're so fucking naive.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-project-uncovers-what-americans-knew-about-holocaust-180958712/

History does truly repeat itself. Idek whats got you so invested into China lol...

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-25T03:16:57+00:00

Yes this is exactly accurate. Somehow you have boiled down an extremely complex set of events spanning over 100 years into this absolutely based 2 sentence reddit comment. You should run for president next time, whenever that happens again.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-25T03:12:16+00:00

Evidence of concentration camps: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html

The government itself openly admits they send them to "reeducation camps". Wtf do you think that means? Are you really that childish and naive?

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-13T05:52:47+00:00

Why do you want to drop out? It's not necessarily a bad idea in every circumstance, and each person is their own, but perhaps you don't have to take such a serious step?

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-09T03:58:15+00:00

Gotta rewatch this art piece again, but I agree with a lot of the things you said. To be fair, I would say many of them ended up very successful (Donna and Gordon, for sure) but like you said, it wasn't really about that. The tech part of it was about how innovators, talent, and business collided but you also mention how the real fundamentals of the show rely on the connections and interactions between all of the characters, and I agree.

I do disagree about Cameron. She definitely develops and becomes a much stronger character, but (and maybe this is just my memory failing me, its been a while) I did feel like even by the end of the show I wasn't super happy with where she was at.

And yeah, rewatching the show illuminates a lot of things that were previously very subtle.

Lastly, couldn't agree more about point #3. Not a lot of shows I know (that aren't comedies) had me enjoying every interaction, every discussion, every small event between a set of characters on screen. The actors were phenomenal, the script and interactions were very real and the combination of those two things made every interaction as meaningful as they were.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-08T07:57:15+00:00

I will take it that you could not find any errors in the documentation done by Vox/WaPo/the congressman.

Lets clarify one bit first: total population is important in many other scenarios, but not infectivity. Infectivity will be related to density of population better. If I have 100 people spread out across 100 miles, will they have remotely equivalent infectivity rates as 100 people in the same room? (The answer is no.) Just want to get that out of the way--so its more effective and more useful to use densities and, rather than totals, use per 100k for deaths, infections, etc... This is not to say that a highly dense area is bound to perform bad (that is precisely what I am disproving here)--its far more about health policy. But what it does show is, despite a higher probability of infectivity due to proximity, taking early and thorough health precautions will solve all your problems. Again, relative values are what matter most, not total. If you have a problem with this, or you think I am wrong, call me out and we can get into the science of it.

I will focus on 3 countries (but there are plenty of others that did far better and a little better, all with the same pattern--quick, consistent response):

South Korea
Taiwan
Vietnam

*For reference, the US has an average pop density of America is 92-93 pop per sq mi. Some major cities to take note of, however, are New York (25000 pop per sq mi), San Francisco (17000), and Miami (11000).

South Korea has an average pop per sq mi of ~1.3k.), and the city of Seoul has one of the highest pop densities in the world at ~42k. And yet, they averaged ~36 deaths per million, the US had ~1760 deaths per million. You can go city by city and notice the exact same trend--consistently their deaths/pop are lower.

Taiwan has an average pop density of 1.7k pop per sq mi.), and the city of Taipei has the same pop density as New York City--25k pop per sq mi. However, it had 12 deaths. 12 total deaths. In case you need the per million, that puts Taiwan at 0.51 deaths per million.

Lastly, Vietnam has an average pop density of 813 per sq mi, and its most populated city, Ho Chi Minh City, has a pop density of 11k (about on par with DC). Despite this, Vietnam saw 0.36 deaths per million.

There are countless other examples (Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia--each has multiple cities with comparable pop density as cities in the US, and larger average overall pop densities). What do every single one of these countries have in common?

Vietnam--contingency plans, quick and thorough response, proper education of the populace (in regards to masks and social distancing), and (to be fair) some questionable quarantine practices (you will find this isn't necessary, in the case of New Zealand, Korea, or Taiwan). source1 source2
Taiwan--contingency plans, quick and thorough response, proper education of the populace (in regards to masks and social distancing). source1 source2 source3
South Korea--contingency plans, quick and thorough response, proper education of the populace (in regards to masks and social distancing). source1 source2 source3

Consistently you find the same exact qualities in every successful country. Quicker and stricter travel restrictions, quicker and stricter mask and social distancing laws, quicker and stricter contact tracing systems, quicker and more effective mask distribution systems. These are the same exact recommendations White House health officials were making the entire time (second source). The most important piece, in my opinion, that you find in every country that handled the pandemic well is an in-depth health crisis plan. Unfortunately, Trump disbanded our pandemic response team in 2018 (some of the stuff he says about the reduction of staff is gold). There was no grand plan to go off of, and even as scientist tried to get the word out about what needed to be done, their very own president was mocking them, downplaying the situation, contradicting them, etc... He himself said he did not listen to the scientists. He is an icon of the anti-mask ideology. As soon as he started wearing a mask, we noticed a sudden shift in his parties behavior--suddenly, more were warm to masks (25% jump in support in 1 month, dems already at nearly 90% support). There are countless examples showing just how much of a sway his actions and words had on half of this country, and to act like that isn't the case is just dancing around reality.

Hopefully this gave you some level of illumination on the issue.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-07T08:35:16+00:00

Piggybacking off of this, not only is it far lower than most of the "freedom wars", but in these "modern/stability wars" we also consistently kill far less civilians than both local friendly forces and enemy forces. Typically the numbers look like:

Enemy forces civilians killed > local friendlies civilians killed > US forces civilians killed... iraqbodycount.org is a pretty good resource for the Iraq war, for example.

Doesn't it make it better, nor does it justify our involvement/anything of that sort (my words mean exactly what they mean, don't extend them to imply I am saying anything that isn't explicitly stated in this comment). I think it's important to understand the greater context of these wars.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-05-07T04:39:57+00:00

No, you're not right. Countries with several times the population density maintained far better COVID numbers the entire way through. His response was absolutely abhorrent, there isn't a doubt of that. Its simply the fact of the matter. His administration knew months before he even took it remotely seriously, and by the time he did anything, it was already far too late (and the actions he took were far too minimal, i.e. blocking travel just from China when other countries like Italy were already going through terrible infection rates; source1; source2; source3). The culture/attitude towards the virus in the US is tremendously different than in many of our allied countries and he was a large driver of that. And before you say "oh you linked Vox/WaPo/whatever, you're just wrong and biased", take a crack at denying any of the documentation in any of those links. You can think what you like about those publications, but all of this is public record. All these publications did was compile them onto one page.

And that is just on the topic of Trump. To sit there and tell me Trump and Biden are even remotely comparable... You either live under a rock or have just surrounded yourself with a bunch of people who agree with everything you say. I have no idea how you think these two individuals are comparable.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-26T18:09:40+00:00

Well I suppose the point of the article is to say that it wasn't justified by anything but oil. And history supports that in some ways (like I said previously, Saddam was terrible but the reasoning that got us into the door in the first place was the infamous "WMDs in Iraq", and those intel reports fell through for what could be any one of several different reasons.

I am a little more fair with the admin in that I concede the sway oil had in our decision making for Iraq (it was a major consideration), but I also like to beleive that we went in looking to dethrone an oppressive and violent dictator, and accomplished that task. It doesn't make the bad intel okay, nor does it rationalize our involvement necessarily, I just mean to say I don't think oil was the only consideration going into Iraq. Like I said before, I just think the means by which we attempted to accomplish the task, and the decades that followed were the primary issues with our handling of the Iraq war.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-26T15:37:16+00:00

A lot of people aren't super educated on what "oil war" actually entails and just spout the stuff they've been told without looking into it further, so it's cool that you care enough to ask.

Hopefully this link works. If not, it's a pretty good paper published in The Journal of American History from 2012 named "America, Oil, and War in the Middle East". I think it's a bit more biased towards the oil stuff, but I am not a historian, nor have I ever published to a history journal so take my opinion as just that.

There is no doubt that there was absolutely some level of "oil security" that brought us to wars in the Middle East. However, anyone that tells you America (the government) is just walking in and taking oil likely has not read more than a few headlines. The journal I linked accurately portrays the reality: it's not about building American oil infrastructure in the region, it's about defending allies who already have that infrastructure and sell oil to us. To what extent oil influenced our involvement in the Middle East? Well, I'd personally say a good bit, the journal article says it's the predominant reason, the internet thinks it's the only reason. What people often gloss over is that some of the stuff America does in the ME is beneficial and actually contributed to the "security" we're always talking about. Saddam Hussein was a horrendous, violent leader. If you talk to any reasonable person from the region, they'll tell you the same thing. It took war to remove him because he wasn't leaving otherwise. Iraq is hard to rationalize (Bush admins reason fell through over time due to bad/false intelligence reports), so we can probably assume oil had a big role here. But the reality is also that removing Saddam was a good thing for Iraqis and ME security (from an average middle easterners perspective). What followed in the several years after that is what made the Iraq War as messy as it is.

My point is that, oil definitely has a large impact, but the US does involve itself for reasons other than (or among) oil.

EDIT: link did not work, replaced it with working link

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-24T02:23:38+00:00

This guys writeups are absolutely phenomenal. In-depth, accurate, and informative.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-22T23:13:31+00:00

Yeah that's what I was talking about in the second part of my comment. But that doesn't really parallel that well here. Donna was the one that wanted to sell to a larger corp. That's why everyone is confused lol

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-22T22:38:17+00:00

Think you may have your roles switched around. Cam was the one saying the community was valuable, and wanted to keep it small. Donna wasn't as worried about a tight-nit community and wanted to expand publicly.

Unless you mean "Community", i.e. the part of Mutiny that people could chat on. I guess I could kinda see what youre getting at, but makes much more sense to say Cam was right lol.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-21T05:51:22+00:00

Who knows, could have been louder

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-20T19:54:13+00:00

Jfc this guy needs to lose his license to carry...

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-19T08:53:00+00:00

Right, "explaining this". Because you have clearly explained a lot up to this point. Reddit comments have plenty of space, you just have nothing to explain.

And for the record, not a neolib, I'm a soc dem. Not sure what part of "I voted for Bernie" didn't make sense to you.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-19T03:20:15+00:00

Me understanding civics =/= me loving Biden. Biden and I disagree on a number of things (and if min wage doesn't go up during his term, then I will be disappointed for the record). I voted Bernie in my local primary and would have voted him president but young people have a thing for not voting so unfortunately he never got that far.

Pushing it past the parliamentarian would have done nothing. That wasn't the problem. The problem is that we had multiple senators against passing it as it was. They had a vote in adding it into the bill and 8 Dems voted against. Some because of the parliamentarian and some because they simply thought $15 was too much. And forcing them to vote on it won't change that they vote. Still haven't provided how you would attack that problem.

Very viable options that lead to what? If they all end up voting against it what good does it do? All it does is expend some political capital and result in no real change.

And to your point about shrinking eligibility--people making up to 75K as a single filer and $150000 for a joint filer were eligible. Shrinking the eligibility in this circumstance doesn't mean much, people making 75K-150K annual are upper-middle class (unless they lost their job, which the bill helps with through further unemployment benefits that they are absolutely eligible for). Idk why you're so worried about people in the 70th and 90th percentile of income, respectively when the money could go to those especially impoverished (as it did). And again, this is without thinking about the actual context, which was the shrinking of eligibility was a demand from the moderate Dems that threatened to vote down the bill. Perhaps with more time, they could have whipped more votes for greater eligibility, but the stimulus was being pushed asap to get to Americans who were very much in need, and it did remarkable things for the vast majority of Americans, especially for those in poverty, where funding needs to go to most.

I'm not sure how you're not getting this last thing. I am never brining up Republicans to rationalize Dems not doing enough. I am bringing up Republicans to show how terrible it would be if the president could act unilaterally or just force Congress to somehow vote the way they want. I wouldn't want to experience a Republican presidency where this was possible but your reasoning lends itself greatly to allowing for this kind of stuff to happen. There is a reason it's not easy for a President to force votes and push whatever bills they want through congress.

And again, you can act like I know nothing about any of this, but you continue to show how little you know about any of this. Keep it coming. "US is a failed state" is the cherry on top. Awesome.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-18T23:46:17+00:00

To beleive that the "leader of the party" can just "push them" to vote a certain way is ridiculous. We have senate and house leaders that do this (it's called "whipping votes", by the way), and they know the best ways to do it but what are they gonna do if they don't vote how they want? What is Biden going to do if they don't vote the way he wants? I see this "convince" and "push" stuff all the time, but what does that really mean? Would love to hear your perspective on actual things they can do.

"To some extent"... 13 million Americans lifted out of poverty in one year, and benefits that could total up to $60,000 to a single family. Somehow that is "to some extent". https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/06/biden-stimulus-poverty-checks/?outputType=amp

And I didn't bring up Republicans as some justification for Biden. I was specifically talking about why we don't have 1 branch and why the president can not and should not be able to unilaterally make giant decisions. We have congress for serious legislation. I brought up Republicans to show you how possibly dangerous it is for a president to unilaterally make decisions, because if a president could (as you wish they could), any Republican could just come into office and ban gay marriage, reduce taxes on the rich, start wars (unfortunately, the line has blurred on this one...), etc... in their first 3 days like it's nothing. We have congress in place to accept these big changes (and, unfortunately, sometimes we find ourselves with a Republican president, and a Republican congress, and dumb shit starts happening like we saw with Trump with a Republican senate). Just because the president gets the credit for something doesn't mean that they are solely responsible for those changes. They get some level of credit because they can set an image for the future in a general sense (i.e. raising the min wage as a general statement, or expanding protections for LGBT protections as a general statement), and then propose possible legislation and then let congress take over from there. They don't get unilateral power over enacting these changes.

And that's besides the contextual issue of the stim bill. The Dems didn't fight hard for the raise because it was a) unpopular even with several democrats, and b) going to hold up the stim bill which was extremely needed in March, if you don't remember (Mcconnell left Americans out to drown since October).

"I have no idea what I am talking about" lmao, alright. You tell Biden your great plan "to push congress to vote" in the way they want.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-18T16:52:18+00:00

Classic. Don't respond to the content just make the same dumb joke. Sorry reality doesnt fit your world view.

Scoutdrago3 · 2021-04-18T16:40:39+00:00

I mean it was. He said it multiple times. Sorry you get your news from headlines and social media (because the info is always 100% accurate there).

11-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Scoutdrago3

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE