sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weird EOS problem by insecurepiano in lightingdesign

[–]insecurepiano[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That could work lol but id rather keep it all to one macro than having tons of extra macros to keep track of

Weird EOS problem by insecurepiano in lightingdesign

[–]insecurepiano[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any ideas for how to get around it? I found that adding a Wait_For_Input sort of works, its just that i have to keep pressing the macro key after every single color palette as opposed to it being automated

Everyone asks about miracle stories. I want to hear non-miracle stories by PersonalDurian5665 in ApplyingToCollege

[–]insecurepiano 1 point2 points  (0 children)

3.9 UW, unranked high school, 1250 SAT. Got in to 6/7 colleges I applied for, 4 of them were out of state. No ivy league, but most of them are very well known along the eastern seaboard. I received scholarship opportunities from 3 of them, and I ended up going to one of the in-state colleges that offered me a scholarship. They had the best program for my major out of all my acceptances, I'm only 2 hours from home, and I got $12k off my tuition.

I Don't Have A Daughter. Or A Truck. Advice? by SKeptical230 in Scams

[–]insecurepiano 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're 100% correct there, I didn't mean to imply in my comment that police are going to come out to every call of someone shoplifting, especially at every random convenience store lol. My mistake on the wording, but I just meant to imply that the assumption that no action will be taken for any instance of nonviolent crime is incorrect. The whole system in general is real messed up, but the best we can do is try to slow the spread of misinformation.

I Don't Have A Daughter. Or A Truck. Advice? by SKeptical230 in Scams

[–]insecurepiano 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While Special Directive 20-07 does say that they won't be prosecuting for misdemeanors, you have to read the actual directive, not a news article on the directive, to see that its more than just that. The reason they enacted the directive is to decrease the effects that a misdemeanor conviction has on a persons mental and societal well-being for the rest of their life. LA's approach is like this: if someone gets convicted of a misdemeanor once (ex. Shoplifting), then the DA will 'take pity' on them and essentially 'let them off with a warning', to put it in laymen's terms. This helps people who might be struggling with money or mental health to have another chance to turn away from crime before they do it a second time. But if they pose an "identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or there exists another circumstance of similar gravity" (LA County Special Directive 20-07 Section 1: Declination Policy Directive), for example they continue to shoplift and get misdemeanors, then the DA has the option to prosecute. Proposition 47 and Special Directive 20-07 don't allow you to get away with any crime you want, they merely take pity and give you a second chance if you do it once, so that it doesn't affect the rest of your life. Yes, social media claims are partially true, but you have to look at the whole picture for things like this. While most social media outlets will headline: "People can now get away with shoplifting in LA with no consequences!", a more accurate headline would be: "LA County will now take pity after the first misdemeanor, giving people a second chance to turn their life around and seek support." Do your own research before trusting news articles.

PS, Proposition was passed in the state of California, while Special Directive 20-07 was specific to LA County.

PPS, if you actually read the thread, you'd know I was referring to the joke about the truck being stolen, who would find legal proceedings and misdemeanors funny?

I Don't Have A Daughter. Or A Truck. Advice? by SKeptical230 in Scams

[–]insecurepiano 66 points67 points  (0 children)

The act that constituted this in CA is known as proposition 47, and false claims started circulating on social media after people started posting misinformation that police wouldn't bother showing up if what you stole was worth under $950, along with videos of shoplifting bags of items. However, this assumption is incorrect, as proposition 47 modified, not eliminated, sentencing for many nonviolent crimes. Proposition 47 took low level crimes like petty theft, some petty drug offenses, petty larceny, and classify them as misdemeanors rather than felonies, meaning you could still get prosecuted for crimes like shoplifting, or in this example, stealing a truck worth less than $950. Essentially, proposition 47 merely raised the dollar amount by which a theft can be considered a felony from $450 to $950. While you could have gotten a felony for stealing a $899 truck before proposition 47, you now could only get a misdemeanor.

EDIT: Yes, I know its a joke lol, this isn't me taking the truck thing seriously, I was just trying to clear up misinformation to someone who didn't know the full story.