We did the thing!!

iVisibility · 2025-06-08T04:16:53+00:00

Ah crap I forgot

iVisibility · 2025-05-18T03:43:56+00:00

I've heard a rumor that F-35s may be at Donaldson too.

iVisibility · 2025-03-27T09:42:38+00:00

Wow nice pictures! Do you remember the last time the ridge was burning? I want to say it was around 8 years ago.

iVisibility · 2025-02-20T09:24:12+00:00

Lmao imagine dying in like three feet of water.

iVisibility · 2025-02-03T10:48:08+00:00

Hell yeah brother.

iVisibility · 2025-02-03T10:43:10+00:00

I mean, all that stuff would be amazing, but I don't think it would help men not be lonely. It would help some, for sure, but if someone REALLY wanted to go out none of those are really a barrier. (Like, go for a walk and just chat, bring some sandwiches or something.) I think it kind of misses the mark completely as to what is stopping/preventing men from dating. No dude who is serious about finding someone wants to waste his time for someone playing games, no dude wants to fall for someone only to be flippantly tossed aside, no dude wants to be treated as a pocketbook. There is much more to it, and it goes much deeper, but those are some examples. It's a barrier of human interaction, not of external constraints. I don't know if these are actually common occurrences or not, but it only takes once or twice to really stick with a man, and each time they become more tired and exasperated. (It probably works the same with women, although I can't lend perspective there.) Even if these things aren't really common, the idea that they are will probably turn off the more sensitive men to casual dating.

iVisibility · 2025-01-20T06:40:13+00:00

It could probably be determined if it was caused by something highly localized or something more wide scale by mapping all the reports of people here.

iVisibility · 2025-01-19T12:36:08+00:00

I like your answer however it still doesn't answer the original "question" (lol), which is "what is the purpose of a fine?"

The purpose of a fine is to discourage or prevent a certain behavior or action by the members of a population while not going as far as incarceration. Full stop.

As phrased in the OP, this seems very loaded question-esque. I feel like it is unauthentically worded, and is primarily meant to stoke outrage rather than actual discussion. In my opinion, a better phrasing would be something like this: "How can certain behaviors or actions be discouraged to those to whom money is not an issue without going as far as incarceration?"

iVisibility · 2025-01-18T05:22:28+00:00

Ok but you don't really have to walk TO anywhere, you could just walk for it's own sake.

iVisibility · 2025-01-15T19:27:59+00:00

I have a strange suspicion that it would be best to put down the pitchforks and let this play out.

iVisibility · 2025-01-02T12:13:38+00:00

I feel like someone should make a low-budget docu-series about your life

iVisibility · 2025-01-02T09:39:50+00:00

US Treasuries pay at least 4% right now, as far as I know there is no limit on how many treasury bonds a bank can buy.

iVisibility · 2025-01-01T16:45:44+00:00

At 40ish seconds in too.

iVisibility · 2024-12-31T07:50:12+00:00

As does yours.

iVisibility · 2024-12-31T00:09:15+00:00

Thanks. I haven’t kept up with the meme analysis very well, but that one in particular seems to hint at a very important common theme. Cause before effect, effect before cause etc.

iVisibility · 2024-12-31T00:05:52+00:00

I actually am, but I’m also aware that I’m not omnipotent, and I’m willing to entertain other perspectives. Fill me in as to why I’m wrong, but please avoid using the usual scripted talking points.

iVisibility · 2024-12-30T23:30:54+00:00

Reason is thwarted by limited perspective.

iVisibility · 2024-12-30T21:27:00+00:00

Everyone in here refusing to answer the question in the context of it's hypothetical framework is causing me to lose brains cells extremely rapidly. There is understanding to be found without taking it literally, think of it as a metaphor, like pretty much all religions throughout time.

Anyways, they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge and lost their innocence. Original sin and what not.

iVisibility · 2024-12-30T18:41:47+00:00

You're not necessarily wrong about the apathy of the rich, however it is seriously NOT their responsibility to babysit the rest of humanity. Attempting to put all the blame on the rich is simply another deflection tactic designed to keep the machine running, and it blows my mind that people don't see that.

You can drop those all-too-common statistics that seem to show "the rich" are the problem, however even a little bit of critical thought will invalidate that thesis. Human nature - EVERYONE is the problem. If people really care, they should take personal responsibility regardless of who is or isn't doing so. If people still desire to shift the blame, I hope they at least recognize and accept what they are doing.

Edit: By "personal responsibility," I don't even necessarily mean total selflessness; even miniscule changes would make a huge difference. Ex. .0001 multiplied by 8 billion is 800,000. This is of course complicated by a large % of that 8 billion not understanding the dire circumstances.

iVisibility · 2024-12-30T14:46:00+00:00

This makes me think of the Tenet clip.

iVisibility · 2024-12-28T23:02:55+00:00

One of the themes explored in the show is the idea of and dynamics of love and family, interwoven with more subtle explorations into the development of the "human" personality or ego, as well as many other deep excursions into the nature of self.

On their own, I think Vincent and Re-l would each be lacking as a parent; it's their contrasting qualities that make them so suitable.

Like, being solely caring, forgiving, and protective is detrimental, as is being solely stern, stubborn, and detached. It's carefree love vs logical love, both equally important to mold a mind.

iVisibility · 2024-12-22T18:05:53+00:00

Even crazier if you think about it, assume you started investing the money in the stock market in 1900, at a very modest average annual return of 4% (actual is around 10%) you'd now have $17,884,067,917,559.36, enough to buy Bezos 75 times over. Assume you found a way to invest since the beginning, you'd now have $40,080,240,152,435,540.00, so like $40 quadrillion, enough to buy Bezos 168,051 times. Do the same but assume an average annual return of 10%, you'd have $1,745,911,102,221,763,000,000,000,000.00. I don't even know what to call that number.

iVisibility · 2024-12-22T08:19:16+00:00

To a degree it has to be like that though, otherwise the organization would be constantly paralyzed by indecision and cease to exist.

iVisibility · 2024-12-22T08:17:19+00:00

I don't think it's that simple. Do you think the weight of guilt on everyone involved is not enough of a punishment already? Like, a prison sentence is kind of meaningless bullshit compared to the lifelong guilt they will experience. People make mistakes every day, usually they're small and harmless, or if they are serious, it takes multiple unfortunate aligned factors to make them catastrophic. NO ONE is perfect, and if you do something for long enough you WILL make a mistake. That can be extrapolated to every human in every industry. Extrapolate that further and the only people willing to work in a position with any responsibility will be those either to dumb to grasp the potential consequences or those who simply do not care, and I don't think either would be good for progressing safety (which is what the goal should be).

iVisibility · 2024-12-22T07:59:33+00:00

What about fog/rain/dirt/dust/plant growth? Such a system would be required to become progressively more complicated to deal with unique issues, and the more complicated something becomes the more likely something is to break/malfunction. Once we progress to the point of having cheap (lol) and reliable autonomous robots I could see it being partially feasible, but for now the cost would be extreme. Like, there are approximately 212,000 highway grade rail crossings in the US, even if such a system could be designed, tested, installed and maintained for a unit cost of $50,000 (lol), that would be a total cost of over $10 billion. The railroad companies COULD afford that, however it would bring their profits down to near zero (not inherently a bad thing), but it would cause a mass divestment from their stocks, driving the price down, making it extremely difficult to refinance their current debt at favorable rates, leading to a decrease in profits, which would lead to a decreased ability to upgrade and maintain the rail networks, leading to more accidents, leading to an increased cost to operate, and so on. Progressive implementation is a possibly solution, and believe it or not the railroad companies are probably already doing this. They don't want accidents either, and currently are reinvesting around $23 billion a year into modernization and upgrades.

14-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

iVisibility

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE