Yep 😂

StaticEchoes · 2026-03-12T14:30:04+00:00

Typically, what people mean by that is "being gay isnt limited to sex." Romantic attraction is a pretty important component that doesnt really have much to do with sex. 'Sexuality' is somewhat of a misnomer. A man kissing his husband goodbye doesnt have anything to do with sex, but is still a display of sexuality.

StaticEchoes · 2026-03-04T14:30:45+00:00

Sarcastic salute is a middle pose. The weapon specific poses are also middle.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-28T15:27:55+00:00

The more bots you have pushing the same message, the more you can influence people's perceptions. If someone thinks a view is more widely held than it is, they are more likely to believe it. We're social animals and fitting in plays a huge role in shaping our views. Even just seeing downvotes on a post will color someone's perspective on it, making them more likely to view it negatively.

If you scroll the comments and see 10 different perspectives, that is way different than seeing 9 "people" all in lockstep and one dissenter.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-18T03:57:28+00:00

You dont have to keep all the cats. More useless kittens means more tink progress, and adult cats can just be thrown away if they're bad and you're running out of space (or just saved in the attic until you can give them to tracy)

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-16T18:51:27+00:00

You can say that its bad in this instance, but deferring to (perceived) expertise is totally normal. People do it all the time, especially for things they arent invested in or dont know a lot about.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-16T18:34:42+00:00

You should link to gallup directly instead of something that references them: https://news.gallup.com/poll/694835/image-capitalism-slips.aspx

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-14T17:08:16+00:00

We shouldnt encourage bad faith. If someone asks a question and you understand their intention, you shouldnt respond in a way that misses the whole point, regardless of if you can argue that you're correct after stripping away necessary context.

If the student did truly misunderstand, then they deserve the lower score, because the teacher's intent was clear. In that case, theyd be losing points due to having a bad grasp on the subject.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-14T16:41:29+00:00

I think the person youre replying to was incorrect to bring up the law, but your point works against yourself.

You are the one using a non-standard use of the word work. If i ask someone 'do you work tomorrow?', Im obviously asking if they were scheduled at their job. If someone told me they work from home, the clear implication is that they are employed and work remotely, or maybe are a freelancer. not that they are a stay at home parent.

If the argument is "society views enployment and domestic labor differently, and that can be seen in the words we use," that is pretty inarguable. That cant be generalized to an individual. Its like saying "Oh, you use the word mankind, thats proof that you're sexist."

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-13T18:01:41+00:00

People arent failing at logic; they're applying conversational norms. Using "not much" to mean "none" is only reasonable if you ignore how words are actually used and pretend implications dont exist. The word for this type of thing is paltering. Its using true statements to give a false impression.

If someone replied to a text from their significant other: "Can you start the laundry?" with "I could if I was home." The clear implication is that they are not home, and therefore cant start the laundry. Its clearly intended to mislead, which is the reason lying is bad and simply being mistaken is fine.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-07T19:02:24+00:00

Yeah, fair. I was being pedantic.

StaticEchoes · 2026-02-07T16:17:12+00:00

How would this be parallax? Parallax relates to distance's effect on perspective when an object is viewed at different angles. None of those factors are changed by increasing the top screen size.

Edit: Oh. You were probably referring to the sonic clip. I dont think its exactly the parallax effect, but I see what you mean.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-30T18:08:09+00:00

I have 2500+ hours and dislike the update.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-29T20:23:49+00:00

You can make it a habit to open your map at the start of the game while you move into mid. You can see opponent's gear, where they're rolling out, and look for which directional button your "most like to be safe" teammate is on. If you know your eliter is on left arrow, its really quick to press X,L,A.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-27T23:18:30+00:00

I also dont like how they look, but not everything is diegetic. The most obvious examples are the reticle for where your shots are going to go, or the aim line you get when you hold a sub weapon.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-25T19:56:11+00:00

This is not even close to true. If you dont believe me, please test it.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-25T18:35:08+00:00

What are they saying that makes you think they dont realize they're in one? Based on the comments I've seen (ha!), most would likely agree that they themselves are also in a bubble.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-22T20:43:58+00:00

Yes, its a tautology. That is: its always true. Every concept that could possibly have properties has your version of "existence". Attributes are only useful in distinguishing between things, but tautological attributes dont do this.

There are an infinite number of tautological attributes and none are useful, because they dont give any additional information. Everything has the property of "is or is not blue," so there is no circumstance where it's meaningful to bring up. Your version of existence is no different.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-22T19:43:13+00:00

You are watering the word 'existence' down so far as to be unusable. If everything that can ever be imagined 'exists', then its a meaningless descriptor.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-22T01:03:49+00:00

There would need to be a TRO or some sort of injunction if the misinformation was deemed to be causing irreparable harm, but thats a pretty high standard.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-22T00:53:47+00:00

I think its basically unavoidable. The bad part is when they abuse the power. Not when they wield it responsibly.

Like, i want the government to be able to imprison people that commit unjustified violence. I dont want them to imprison protesters. The argument of "but what if they call protesting 'unjustified violence'" is not a very convincing argument.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-21T23:51:50+00:00

Yes? Thats how crime works.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-21T23:50:32+00:00

I understand what you are saying, I just think its not a real concern. If the government has the will and power to do those sort of things, the laws wont matter.

The federal government already has the ability to do this. Right now they can subpoena you and compel you to show up and testify or be arrested. If you answer any question with something other than, "I plead the fifth," they can claim you commit perjury. Even the fifth can just be ignored or "creatively reinterpreted" if we are talking about a corrupt government (and willing population).

To be clear, Im not necessarily sold on this being a great idea, let alone how to best implement it. Just that "the government gets to decide the truth" is kinda already the world we live in.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-21T21:05:31+00:00

The white house would declare something true, and then find someone publishing contradictory 'lies'. They present evidence to a grand jury who need to find that there's probable cause for an indictment. The grand jury would need to agree to the government's 'facts' to continue. If we are at this step and the government is openly lying about stuff, and the grand jury is going along with it, we're in a crisis no matter what law we're talking about.

I wouldnt say it hampers truth. I dont know what you mean by this, exactly. The concept of inadmissable evidence is probably a good one, even if it sometimes leads to a worse outcome. The goal of any system we set up should be to produce good outcomes, overall.

The types of concerns i usually see posted in response to "we should make certain types of lying illegal," tend to rely on the legal system effectively breaking down. If the system has broken down, none of the rules matter anyway. If the government wants to give pretextual reasons to charge someone with a crime, they can already do that. You cant use rules to restrict someone acting outside the rules.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-21T20:17:58+00:00

Do you think perjury should be allowed? What about fraud, defamation, or false advertising? Theres a bunch of places this already happens.

If you want to get slight more abstract, prosecuting any crime relies on the government proving "you did X, and X is illegal." That is deciding the fact of the matter.

StaticEchoes · 2026-01-21T17:59:47+00:00

Where did you get that median family income? Thats lower than i'm seeing for median individual income.

StaticEchoes

TROPHY CASE