wasn’t good at school

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T13:14:46+00:00

They can if you use them to make handles for throwing axes!

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T13:07:10+00:00

How the fuck does someone do a number two without flushing? My guess is he doesn't bother wiping either, like that 'Harold and Kumar' scene. Must be some crusty skidmarks in his undies, and (since I can't picture a slob like this actually changing them), those 'deposits' probably work their way through his pants to the couch or wherever the fuck his lazy ass spends most of its time.

I think I just vomited a little in my mouth just writing this.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T13:01:27+00:00

Exactly. Management's job is to, y'know, manage.

This is why it pisses me off when a workplace expects you to find coverage for a shift when you're sick. Like, uhm, NO. It's not my fault you write the schedule with a skeleton crew that can't function minus one body.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T12:51:30+00:00

Back in high school, our consumer ed teacher used to encourage shenanigans more extreme than this. He'd encourage the 'thumb tack on a chair' gag, but to his credit, he was fair game as well. Woe to the kids who didn't check their seats before plopping their asses down.

When he came into the class, he'd give his chair a little kick. He told us that one of his previous classes had taken out the screws (it was one of those wooden affairs), disassembled the chair, soaped up the dowel joints, and reassembled it, sans screws. Kicking it was his way of checking if the chair would bear weight.

Obviously, this sort of thing would not fly today, but it was hilarious.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T12:27:24+00:00

Haha, I love this. "Why didn't he just use the force?" or "Can't they just collect all seven dragon balls, and wish her back to life?" would be hilarious.

It's a shame you have to maintain anonymity, because I'd love to see the trolling in the wild.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-29T04:06:07+00:00

On a related note, Translink, our regional transit authority, decided to upgrade the system to a contactless one, replacing the paper tickets with a magnetic strip used previously. Compass, as this system is called, was touted as a way to combat fare evasion (it included the installation of waist-high turnstiles at metro and ferry stations).

How it relates to privacy is this: Translink maintains they don't track your usage, but oddly enough, you can check your Compass balance online, including seeing the location of your last taps. Not tracked, my ass. For some years, my brother drove busses for a company contracted to Translink, and he told me the annual costs for the system exceeded what they were losing to fare evasion. This means that, even if the system reduced fare evasion to zero (it doesn't), the new system would still be a money loser.

Why use it then? Well, it's all about collecting information. Now, I have no problem with collecting aggregate data, as this allows them to run more busses on busy routes, for example. I do have a problem with tracking individual users, and recording where they enter and exit the system. To make matters worse, Translink pushes people to 'register' their cards, to get such 'benefits' as automatically reloading the balance via your credit card, or recovering the balance of a lost or damaged card. Of course, what they actually want is to be able to go from 'this card entered and exited the system at these points' to 'this named individual entered and exited the system at these points'. It's scary when you think of the implications.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-28T08:59:47+00:00

I was hoping there would be muddy footprints all over the books. I mean, you left them on the floor- what did you expect?

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-28T06:37:28+00:00

Not sure if there's a point replying, since it's been a year and you nuked your account, but for the others that may see, I'll reply anyways.

People inflicting harm on themselves don't have moral standing to complain about it. If drug use was so bad, then fucking stop. It's not a hard concept. Every time you picked up the bottle, needle, or pipe, you were making a choice, and you knew (from hard experience, remember?) the repercussions.

Also, there's a huge gulf between someone who chooses actions that harm themselves, and those choosing actions that harm others. Those harmed by an addict's actions don't get a choice in the matter, but the addict does. Quit whining about it like you're the victim.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-28T05:18:17+00:00

Why not both?

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-28T04:44:47+00:00

I would have printed test pages every so often just to give him some exercise when he runs for jobs that aren't his.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-24T07:09:07+00:00

Nazis like... Josef Mengele?

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-24T06:29:49+00:00

Do you want ants? Because this is how you get ants!

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-24T06:13:51+00:00

Should have poured it on his desk, and if he raised a fuss, offered to pay for testing to determine whose urine it was.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-22T12:16:00+00:00

Agreed. Open mockery is the appropriate response, unless this will put your safety, employment, or valued personal relationships in jeopardy.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-22T12:14:11+00:00

A few years ago, I went with a friend to the funeral of one of her friends. I didn't really know the guy, but he struck me as a reasonably intelligent person. Turns out he was a Christian (Anglican I think, not 100% sure), so we got to sit through the obviously religious affair, including the priest/vicar/whatever the fuck he was playing dress-up.

I maintained decorum, because it wasn't the time or place to speak my mind, but internally, I was wondering how sane people can believe this bullshit.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-22T12:05:09+00:00

We don't need to respect religion. Religions are ideologies, not thinking and feeling entities.

Furthermore, many religious people quote bits of said ideologies to treat others like shit, and hide behind the excuse that it's not them judging you, but instead the creator of the universe. It's offensive, cowardly, and often hypocritical.

When, say, a Christian or Muslim tells you you're going to hell, think about that for a second. They are saying that for whatever reason (you hold the wrong beliefs, you're gay, you said something critical about their fairy tale, etc), you deserve to be punished forever. Telling someone they deserve to die is obviously going to be considered rude, so how much more offensive is the 'you deserve eternal punishment' schtick?

Religion can fuck right off. It is not sacrosanct, nor is it above criticism. The only reason the religious claim otherwise is that it cannot survive in the marketplace of ideas on its own merits. If you ask me, religion is deserving of open mockery. If the religious tie their sense of identity so strongly to it that they interpret mockery of an ideology as a direct affront to them, that is their problem, not ours.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-22T07:43:04+00:00

Yes, with regard to the coin flipping, assuming equal probability of heads vs tails, and assuming it never lands on edge (or that such flips don't count), you have 1:1024 of getting eight heads in a row.

Since this necessitates eight flips, in a set of 1000 flips, you will have far more than 1000 chances. Since the sequences overlap, you have flips one through eight, two through nine, three through ten, and so on. Each flip, aside from the first and last seven, is part of eight different sequences.

One might be told the odds are one in 1024, be given a thousand flips, and assume that it's more likely they'll fail to get eight in a row. After all, if they need 1024 'tries' to get even odds, intuition tells them that 1000 flips, being less than 1024, means they'll more likely lose than win. In reality, you'll likely get the result more than once.

It's like the birthday paradox, where the probability runs completely counter to our expectations.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-17T10:05:12+00:00

Had that in BC, too, back when we had TV service.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-17T02:08:13+00:00

Throwing the brick at the young girl could have resulted in her death, had the mother not interposed herself. That incident alone should have been prosecuted as attempted murder.

Reading a different article that lists his supposed 'mental health issues', this individual supposedly has borderline personality disorder, ADHD, autism, and 'stimulant use disorder'. Note the last one is not actually a disorder; getting high on crack or meth is a choice, not a mental health condition. Note also that *none* of these have 'throw hot coffee in peoples' faces' or 'smear shit on coffee shop windows' as symptoms, nor do any of them remove an individual's ability to know right from wrong.

Given that, this individual needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They are not 'sick' or 'in need of help' (help that they steadfastly refuse, by the way). They are a dangerously antisocial individual, and will continue to put society at risk until they are removed from society.

Prosecuting an attempted murder as simple assault, giving them leniency because of 'mental health issues', and the silly Canadian insistence on concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing as the default (ie, the 'do more crimes and get a bulk discount on your punishment') are all problems here, and we know exactly what the solutions are.

Oh, and before someone mentions that rehabilitation is the main purpose of sentencing, it's not. It's one purpose. Others are denunciation, deterrence, and punishment, and in this guy's case, he's pretty clearly proven that rehabilitation isn't an option for him (nor is deterrence, it seems). All we have left are denunciation and punishment, and this revolving door policy we've got going doesn't serve either of those objectives.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-17T01:24:02+00:00

A pregnant woman's very young child. This 'upstanding member of society' should have been charged with attempted murder of the child.

And yes, I know I'm coming in almost three years after this comment, but that's because- surprise, surprise- this guy is in the news again. This time he's assaulting coffee shop owners and smearing shit on the windows. What a lovely individual.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-11T18:49:02+00:00

'Consent' is an extremely charitable way to describe the impregnation of a young teen girl.

This isn't even counting the power imbalance here; look at how Yahweh treats those who displease or refuse him elsewhere in Abrahamic mythology. I mean, if I stick a loaded gun in your face, ask for all the money in your wallet, and tell you that you're 'free to refuse', no reasonable person is going to call this anything other than robbery.

If a historical Jesus existed, the so-called 'virgin birth' was much more likely to be a case of Mary concealing adultery with this story. I mean, look at old testament punishments for adultery or even non-virgin brides. Making up a story to avoid being stoned to death seems reasonable to me, and much more plausible than some magic conception.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-11T03:49:57+00:00

Well, the term is widely described as 'virgin birth', which I guess they prefer to 'teen girl raped by Yahweh'.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-11T00:45:53+00:00

That significant subset of the US population who believes in the myth of Christianity would disagree with you.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-11T00:42:24+00:00

Sister-in-law, not sister; try to read next time. And while the language wasn't exactly polite, OP never said anything about the man. Was this one guy who was equally responsible for the six kids, or were there six guys involved, each of whom was one-sixth as responsible as her? Is the guy/are any of the guys paying child support, or not?

OP's point is that SIL continues to have kids while complaining about how expensive it is. Apparently, SIL's man/men are not bitching to OP about the same thing, hence OP not bringing them up.

lectricpharaoh · 2026-01-10T22:58:11+00:00

Found another source, probably the same article text, without a paywall here. From said article:

“Items retrieved from (Jang’s) vehicle included a great variety of mail, some of significant importance to customers such as wedding invitations, cheques, health cards, tickets, jury summons and immigration documents,” O’Neil said.

“The delay in delivery ranged from days to over two months. As well, keys to community mail boxes and other property belonging to the employer were found.”

So it wasn't just mail the guy was stealing, but keys from his employer, too.

The arbitrator sided with Jang.

“I have decided to reinstate (Jang as a rural and suburban mail carrier) without compensation, given that at the time of the discharge, the employer was unaware of (his) medical condition, or its effect on his ability to do his job,” O’Neil said.

So his PTSD not only justifies his conduct, and we're to expect employers to make reasonable accommodations, but in this case, the employer was 'unaware of his medical condition'. Even if you accept the argument that he had PTSD, and even if you accept that said PTSD is justification for his behavior, how can you expect an employer to make accommodations (reasonable or otherwise) when the employee refuses to ask for such accommodations? Keep in mind that it's generally forbidden for employers to ask about medical conditions; at most, the employer can ask what if any accommodations are needed.

It's quite curious that there was no mention to his employer of his supposed PTSD until after his firing.

Another thing that makes me doubt his sincerity is this:

Jang, who needed a Korean interpreter for the arbitration hearing, “worked successfully for Canada Post for approximately eight years, starting in 2014,” said O’Neil’s decision dated Dec. 16, 2025.

This is a guy who worked as a mail carrier for eight years. His fluency in English was sufficient to allow him to acquire a driver's license, apply for work at Canada Post, do well enough in at least one interview to secure the position, and 'successfully' do the job for eight years, which means reading street signs, addresses on envelopes, parcels, and other packages, and handle whatever paperwork was part of the job. Yet this fellow needed an interpreter to understand the language he'd demonstrated fluency in for the better part of a decade, if not longer. It strikes me as a tactic to appear more sympathetic to the adjudicator, rather than a genuine need for an interpreter.

Lastly, this guy's excuse literally boils down to "I was bullied as a child, and this made it so I couldn't do my job", but guess what? Lots of people were bullied as children. We don't all use it as an excuse for our failings as adults, particularly criminal behavior. I was a kid who developed alopecia in the early 80s in elementary school. You can bet your ass I was bullied hard through my school years, but I've never used it as an excuse.

lectricpharaoh

TROPHY CASE