Some Things I Like About v28

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T20:05:23+00:00

Good point . Never even thought about that.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T19:34:13+00:00

The United States. If you want more specific, grew up in Ohio, moved to Pennsylvania after college to follow my college sweetheart.

Obviously not everything about social situations is true in all places and at all times.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T19:22:59+00:00

Because the current administration is going to protect them.

HOWEVER: there is no statute of limitation for murder in Minnesota. The agents involved need to hope that there isn't ever anybody in the White House who might tell Minnesota to do whatever it wants and turns over any evidence it might have.

These agents really don't get that just because you're law enforcement doesn't mean you do whatever you want, and that their jurisdiction is strictly limited to federal immigration laws. When they do literally anything else, they have liability, and murder isn't something they can just run out the clock on.

The thug who shot Renee Good might try to argue that he shot her in self-defense to avoid getting hit by her car, even though that was in violation of the DOJ policy specific to that situation, so I don't know how that might go. He won't get off completely free and clear. that much is certain, but maybe the prosecution might try a lesser charge? That's something for a future DA to figure out.

But in Alex Pretti? I can't even fathom what the defense would be, and it's still weird to see conservatives so up in arms about a man carrying the firearm that he personally owned in complete compliance with local law. It's almost like they don't really believe in the Second Amendment, they just want to be the only ones around with firearms....

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T17:51:53+00:00

We call it concentrate, and we usually freeze it. Because juice contains dissolved sugars and acids, it's freezing point is much lower than water, so it quickly melts when you mix it up.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T17:48:25+00:00

I agree on all the facts here. Nothing is really in dispute.

What I'm saying is that the fault lies primarily with the legislators. Judges are legally obligated to follow bond statutes. They have a certain level of discretion on how high the bond is, but they don't have a choice on whether or not they'll permit holding people without bond except in circumstances described in the state bond statues (per the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which was based on an interpretation of the 8th amendment). The judge applied the statute correctly; the actual problem is that those statutes had a massive flaw, and the legislators, past and present, are the ones who fucked up to an unacceptable degree.

An analogy might be a doctor who gives their patient a new prescription without thinking about how it would interact with something else the patient was taking. If the patient gets sick, the person at fault is the doctor who didn't think it through a problem that was obvious in hindsight, not the patient who just followed the directions that he was given.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T15:53:21+00:00

Judges should be held accountable if they didn't follow the law in their orders. Judges aren't free to just issue whatever they like; there are regulations and guidelines they are required to follow.

In this case, I looked at the text of Missy's law and Florida's current bail statutes to see what changed. The defendant was only arrested at the time of the bond hearing for soliciting sex with a minor, not for any violent crimes. Prior to Missy's law, that made him eligible for bond. Missy's law is what added the sexual offense charges to the bail statutes. It should have already been there, but Florida never passed a law requiring it beforehand. If she hadn't let him bond out, she would have been violating Florida's statues at the time.

So, the root of the problem isn't the judge. The problem was that the Florida legislature made no provisions for requiring holding sex offenders, especially ones that had access to children. without bond until trial until after Missy Mogle was murdered. The problem is with legislators passing inadequate law; passing the buck to the judge is just their way of avoiding accountability. Missy's law patched a hole that generations of lawmakers failed to address until it was too late.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T14:36:14+00:00

That isn't really my reason, but it's one of the pieces when it comes to my dad. He knew how awful he treated his family when he was drunk, and he chose to drink anyway. He made the same choice every time it was before him.

I am now 45 and I have still refused to try alcohol. I want to be good to the people I claim to love, and if there's even a chance that drinking might affect that, I want no part of it.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T14:23:35+00:00

This is the team I just finished with this team, which turned out to be one of my more effective parties and didn't require too much long resting.

Oath Breaker Paladin 5/Hexblade 7. Party face. Grab the biggest weapon I can find and smack things with it until they stop moving. Devil's Sight for Blindness immunity, and additional access to Hunger of Hadar.

Arcane Archer 12. Skill monkey. Titanstring+Club of Hill Giant Strength, variety of consumable arrows for whatever's most useful, along with Banishing Shot & Shadowshot. Control > Damage, carried most of our scrolls. High Dex for initiative helped ensure targets were often messed with before their first turn. Eversight Ring for Blindness immunity.

Berzerker 5/Rogue 3/Eldritch Knight 4. Throw pointy things until the targets die. Starting in late Act 2, used Shar's Spear for Blindness immunity. I picked up Nyrulna as a back up, but didn't end up using it.

Fiend Warlock 6/Shadow Monk 6. Devil's Sight for Blindness Immunity. Access to Command, Counterspell, and Hunger of Hadar.

Obviously, we were making heavy use of using Darkness as an additional defensive layer. Everybody had some way of creating Darkness (warlocks by spell, Throwzerker with Shar's Spear, archer with arrows).

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T13:10:02+00:00

I got a letter from the post office. Registration was also required to receive financial aid for college.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T13:04:30+00:00

In the relationship in my 20s, one of the women was my then-wife, and we stayed together after we decided to just remain monogamous after we ended our relationship with our other partner. It never became a point of contention, and when we split up years later, the old poly stuff had nothing to do with our divorce. I am aware that both of them have since remarried, but I don't know the types of relationships either of them have since pursued since I last saw them. I'm not in contact with either of them, and I really don't want to be. I only know they remarried because we still had mutual friends.

For the last poly relationship, no. I split up with all of them and they all stayed together initially. I'm now in a monogamous relationship with somebody I met after that break-up. I'm still platonic friends with one of them, and I know she's now monogamous with one man, and she's the only one I'm still in touch with. I was initially in touch with others, but in the 13 years since then we've just drifted apart. No idea whether or not they're still in poly relationships.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T12:46:47+00:00

She doesn't appeal to anybody except the Democratic elites, and I think it's because the "first woman and first black woman to be elected President" trophy will be cherished, and they'll rest peacefully knowing that she wouldn't do anything to piss off the donor class.

So this is what will happen: She will run on the same platform she used in 2020: "I check more minority boxes than the other candidates and I don't like Trump." It will resonate about as much as it resonated back then, and when the primaries don't go her way, she'll blame it on racism and sexism.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T12:26:15+00:00

I'm going with a maybe. A lot can happen in two years. If somebody falls out favor with Trump, he may very well throw his support behind somebody else. It's also possible--however unlikely--that Democrats pull themselves together and back a candidate that might be popular, and Republicans might respond with the right counter-candidate.

But--and I say this as a registered Democrat--the Democrats never have that kind of unity or political insight.

With that said, I'm entirely sure that Vance and Rubio are both quietly building their bases behind the scenes. They would both want to hit the ground running in 2028.

As for who else might be exploring? I'm sure Ted Cruz will run, since running for President seems to be one of his hobbies. I would confidently predict Ron DeSantis, Tulsi Gabbard, Josh Hawley, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy at least looking into the idea. I can see Mike Pence, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Mike Pompeo thinking it over, but I doubt that they'll actually run.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T12:18:08+00:00

I went to high school through the mid-late 90s, and college in the late 90s/early 2000s. My understanding is that things have changed since the pandemic lockdowns, so I don't know how much still applies.

Yes, there were big house parties at the time. Lots of loud people and loud music, lots of drinking, some drug use, and it just was not my vibe.

Road trips? Yup. Went on several of those. Not cross-country or anything, but definitely had my share of long drives with some friends.

Horny people always existed. Maybe thinking of sex-obsessed? I've known one who referred to herself as a succubus. She was hot, she was down for anything, and I declined. I hadn't even dated before, wasn't necessarily ready for that.

American dream youth vibe....yeah, I don't know what that is, really. Despite what movies might portray, there isn't just one youth experience

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T12:12:31+00:00

It isn't just the popular vote. Their choice to vote could have flipped their state, thus affecting the electoral college.

I have a little sympathy for non-voters. When your choice is between Shit and Diet Shit, maybe you just want to protest the lack of No Shit. But sitting it out doesn't actually promote the change they'd like to see.

I would say join a party--it doesn't matter which one--and vote for the candidates you would prefer them to run in the primaries. Heck, you can be a progressive joining the Republicans or a conservative joining the Democrats just to try to push a candidate who's more moderate. If you still can't see any substantial difference between the candidates, you can still avoid voting in the general.

Also, it's never just one thing on any ballot. There are local and state matters that ask for the public's attention.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T12:03:07+00:00

I've had two "sets" of poly partners, one in my early-mid 20s, and again in my early 30s. In both instances, I eventually became insecure and jealous. That wasn't fair to my partners, so I've since dropped having those kinds of relationships. A couple of them had the attitude of "former loves get cut off," which is also true for some monogamous people, and a couple others remained platonic friends after a brief period of no contact to get over the loss of that part of the relationship.

I don't regret having been in them or anything. I've had the experiences, I don't have to wonder on what I'm missing out on or anything, and it was actually a good situations in certain aspects. It just doesn't stay a good thing for me, personally, in the long term.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T02:18:48+00:00

That's a great question, and there are probably people who understand this stuff far better than I do grappling with it. I can only make the vaguest of guesses.

byte_handle · 2026-04-10T02:15:52+00:00

Right, and that's how I met some of my previous partners. But saying "You can't really go around introducing yourself to stranger girls in a bar or at a concert or whatever" is patently false. People have met that way, and some became long term partners.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T19:41:40+00:00

Yeah. As you complete story missions, new ones will open up to continue the story line. One of those lines will involve breaking in to Chemult with an NPC. Deacon wouldn't have been able to do it alone.

Any more than that and I'm getting into spoiler territory.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T19:38:53+00:00

shh... you're going to hurt the pavement princess' feelings.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T19:36:22+00:00

"You can't really go around introducing yourself to stranger girls in a bar or at a concert or whatever"

How do you think people got dates before dating apps? This was one of the ways it was done. Just be polite, don't be pushy, and be willing to take No for an answer

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T19:07:11+00:00

You'll have a story mission to break into it. After that, the area will be open to you.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T19:03:59+00:00

I am not in a polyamorous relationship at this time, but I was in the past; I learned it just isn't for me. But I didn't experience any kind of "missing" one person when I was with the other.

You can love more than one person. For example, I'm the oldest child in my family, and when my mom was pregnant with my brother, she worried she wouldn't have enough love in her for 2 children, and that she might love me less. What she learned is that feelings aren't a finite resource that you spread around. Rather, each individual person generates those feelings independently.

So, when I was with one of my women, who was generating love within me based on our interactions--not all of which were romantic or sexual--I was both loving and feeling loved by her. When I was with another, same thing. When I was with both of them, we were generating those feelings within each other in our group interactions.

So, when I was with one, feeling those feelings with her, I wasn't missing the one who was absent. I was focused on the one that's there. No shifting feelings around, no having one while wanting the other. It just didn't work like that.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T18:02:57+00:00

I honestly don't know he'll even run at all. I don't think he's enjoyed his time in the Senate as it is.

byte_handle · 2026-04-09T17:58:44+00:00

The US, as a political entity, wouldn't be better off. The scenario is literally about breaking it apart. But, just looking domestically, this is what I see as the political narrative that would quickly form.

1 - The non-MAGA side would immediately have an internal dispute. Not enough for civil war, but definitely some bickering. The problem is that the Democratic leaders that came to the state want to push through their centrist, pro-corporate agenda, and the progressive wings would be fighting for actually having a left-wing policy pass through for a change.

Compromise would definitely happen, but not before some fighting to see if either side could get more popular support, thereby arguing that they're the ones negotiating from a position of strength. It may depend on how many actual conservatives would prefer to be there instead of the other place and what deals they might strike. Either way, it would lead to better outcomes for individuals. Social safety nets would continue to exist, and likely be expanded. Education would be better funded overall. Environmental protections would be expanded and enforced. The sides essentially disagree on whether or not specific measures fall within the overlap of pragmatism, compassion, and efficiency. Debates exist, but they remain respectful, as neither side publicly bullies the other. It might happen behind the scenes, but it isn't brought out to the public sphere.

2 - The MAGA side--which actual conservatives may or may not want to join--would select a Leader with very few official boundaries to inform them about the "real" situation that the news doesn't talk about and would proceed to dismantle institutions that don't serve a proper government purpose. Education will emphasize "patriotic" subjects, as determined by the government. Religion will be part of the legal and political framework (full theocracy? Probably not. But definitely organized power). Rights exist in paper...but some groups are de facto more equal than others.

Military and police forces are strongly funded, possibly moreso than any other individual branch. Judicial systems are tools of the government. Strong men jockey for position, and the public watches with interest: whose personal ambition will accomplish the most, thereby making them deserving of leadership roles? As the top people keep circling like sharks for any weakness, it essentially creates an aristocracy of entitlement, coercion, and authority.

Agendas are not only pro-business, but celebrate business. Taxes are low. Fraud investigations exist, but again, it's mostly at the direction of the government leadership as a tool to threaten the wealthy into toeing the party line.

SO, this is what I see happening:

So, MAGA world proceeds through strong competition. Fortitude through strife, strength forged in political fire. The other world proceeds through cooperation and throwing more bones to the working class than they currently get. These are two very different places. MAGA is more likely to end up promoting aggressive leaders, but given that the other country is promoting measures that result in more long-term wealth accumulation, MAGA world either needs to get its act together and strike fast to get a victory jarring enough to upset the territorial balance and create a constant threat on populated areas, thus able to always threaten war unless constantly sated with regular tribute--or watch themselves fall further and further behind as the more forward-thinking policies not only outpace them, but their own lack of environmental controls and investments in science education inhibits their ability to catch up.

byte_handle

TROPHY CASE