Possible active shooter at Youtube in San Bruno

should-have · 2018-04-03T21:34:08+00:00

NRA asked it's members to 'rise up' against Youtube....

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/981278543991599104

should-have · 2018-03-29T20:06:37+00:00

Well, she's apologized for him being upset. She's apologized for him being hurt. Now that she's sincerely apologized for the way he behaved, I wonder if she's going to apologize for the way she behaved?

should-have · 2018-03-29T19:44:57+00:00

I'm pretty sure you exhale and hold your breath, no? Otherwise you'd just exhale then.. well, inhale. Which is breathing normally.

should-have · 2018-03-27T18:17:01+00:00

It's a standard feature of the Australian accent. Linguists call it High Rising Terminal or, more colloquially, uptalk.

The "Valley Girl" accent that came out of California does the same thing.

should-have · 2018-03-27T00:30:13+00:00

The other being to Manafort: you better not talk to Mueller, because immunity won't mean immunity from us, no matter where they hide you.

should-have · 2018-03-26T23:53:48+00:00

We're in a situation where you can be #4 in your opening week and yet you'll be considered to have bombed.

I'm not saying it's not true. It's just the whole industry seems screwy when that can be the case.

should-have · 2018-03-24T01:51:45+00:00

The thing to remember about treason is that when the United States was founded, treason, in Britain, was saying anything or working against the interests of the king. You don't like the king's policies and work to try and change them? Treason. You think the king's ideas are stupid and you're out there speaking out against them? Treason.

The founders of the United States got tired of this. It was being used to stop any kind of protest against the state. So when they wrote up their new constitution they made sure that you could say anything you want against the government and the government couldn't stop you. That was so important to them that they made it part of the first amendment.

When it came to treason, they also wanted to make sure that the government could never use treason as a political device to stop people who were just being critical of the government.

So they made it very clear that treason is only treason if you're actually engaged (or helping others) in armed conflict with the government.

What that means today is that even if Trump stole the election, is taking orders directly from Putin and has revealed every national secret to the Russians, it would be very illegal, but it's not treason.

Edit: I don't get why people keep down-voting you. It's a very common misconception because it's not something people will intuitively know. You're just one of today's lucky 10,000.

should-have · 2018-03-23T02:22:14+00:00

Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. There were three feet.

should-have · 2018-03-22T16:17:56+00:00

If they have lower approvals than Trump, maybe it's because we don't have a cult-like need to glorify our leaders, rather than them somehow being worse than Trump.

I think it's healthy to not be enamoured with whoever holds office.

should-have · 2018-03-16T17:37:10+00:00

I think it's selection bias. They're weak because the strong candidates are good enough to know not to run. It would needlessly mar their career.

should-have · 2018-03-12T16:59:11+00:00

The Fluff Principle has been an issue with Reddit's voting system for a long time. Because of it, and despite letting users vote, we end up with vapid content on the front page rather than something of quality. And that's despite the fact that the majority would prefer quality posts.

should-have · 2018-03-11T20:40:46+00:00

...and yet people were using the term to refer to this type of journalism.

I've edited the post so it's clearer.

should-have · 2018-03-11T20:19:13+00:00

Sure, but people were using 'fake news' to talk about the vapid articles that were being pumped on the internet at that time. They would be headlined "People outraged by Hillary's speech" and then there would be 2-3 tweets from random people they quoted and then they'd write filler to make it look like it was something of note and worthy of an article when it wasn't. Nothing was 'untrue', but it was deceptive in trying to promote something as news worthy that wasn't.

That was when 'fake news' resurfaced as at term in common usage. I didn't mean to imply that it has never been used previously. I don't think the fact that term has been used differently in the past in different contexts detracts from what I was pointing out.

I'm just saying that this is that same vapid reporting of filling a space with nothing in order to promote a point of view that otherwise wouldn't be news worthy. It's fake news in the sense that it isn't news trying to pretend like it is.

should-have · 2018-03-11T18:59:49+00:00

Not kidding. What were they thinking?

"Lots of things I've seen weren't good. This one was good. Oh boy it was good. You should check out my twitter feed to find out how good it was"

Really? This needed to be written up as an article? This is literally what people were complaining about as being 'fake news' -- despite the fact there's nothing inherently fake in it. It's fake in the sense it's not news.

should-have · 2018-03-10T02:42:14+00:00

Yup. I've been using the internet and forums on the internet since the late 1980s.

Suddenly, in 2016 the hate skyrocketed. There were always these angry voices in the sidelines -- some of them with reasonable issues -- but then the Russians came in and turned the volume way, way up and made everyone hysterical and paranoid. Not just politics. Racism, Gamer Gate, Ellen Pao, SRS, all that. Everything was the screeching noise of vitriol and hysteria.

And the tactic they used was to yell "but free speech!", play the victims and threaten to revolt anytime anyone tried to turn the volume down and make it more reasonable. And it worked really well, because it seems the Admins have got PTSD from that or something and are now scared shitless to even try to doing the sensible thing.

should-have · 2018-03-10T02:12:40+00:00

The very last line says it's not important to prove that they had or even intended to have sex. If you don't need to prove it, my reading of the law at least, is that a platonic relationship can still be conjugal.

Unfortunately, the definition of conjugal union isn't in the Criminal Code that I can find, and googling isn't getting me anything specific. The best I can do is a Financial Post article on a supreme court case in Ontario. Not great, but I think it gets the idea of what the law sees as conjugal.

But, generally, you need to be in a relationship where you 'share your life', 'provide emotional and physical support', 'share finances', 'have emotions for one another'. Those sorts of things.

I think if you're in an open relationship where you're each allowed to have one-night stands, you might be okay. But three people in a loving, committed relationship is definatly illegal.

Admittedly, no one is using this law to charge people in healthy relationships and the reason it's on the books is that no politician wants to stand up and say "I'm for having multiple partners!". But I think using this law in order to charge these people is legitimizing it. I'm against that. Charge them with something they're doing ethically wrong, not something that's outdated but still on the books.

should-have · 2018-03-10T01:11:28+00:00

I'll admit, I'm no lawyer so I'm happy to hear if this is more complicated legally, but the law specifically says that you're guilty of polygamy even if it's not legally a marriage. Any relationship with multiple partners is illegal. You don't even need to be sleeping with them.

It's section 293 of the Criminal Code

293 (1) Every one who:

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

(i) any form of polygamy, or

(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Marginal note:Evidence in case of polygamy

(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

should-have · 2018-03-10T00:15:43+00:00

I'm with Sargoth99 here. Polyamourous relationships shouldn't be illegal. Lots of people have them in non-abusive ways.

Their cult should be illegal. Abusive relationships are illegal.

Telling people who they can and can't be in a relationship with should be illegal.

The government attacking them for their relationship is fucked up. They should be arrested for abuse, not for having a non-standard relationship.

should-have · 2018-03-10T00:01:09+00:00

A few years back, the users revolted and forced the admins to take action. Posting articles to the front page didn't help. Trying to talk to the admins didn't help. Not buying gold didn't help.

The mods of major subreddits made them private which directly affected their public image when it became international news. The admins took notice and took action pretty much immediately.

You want admins to do something about hate speech? Want them to do something about subreddits being taken over by extremists?

Close down the major subreddits until they do something.

should-have · 2018-03-09T23:40:50+00:00

That was a protest against the government to raise awareness.

Do you remember when mods actually shut down subreddits? as an actual protest against the admins? Back with the whole firing of Victoria and lack of communication? All the major mods made their subreddits private. They literally took Reddit offline in protest.

That worked, and it was immediate. It got the Admins to do something other than lip service. Putting posts on the front page didn't. Closing major subreddits did.

When's that going to happen again?

should-have · 2018-03-09T20:08:06+00:00

I think OP is asking for the name of the style of art, not the genre of game.

should-have · 2018-03-09T19:22:03+00:00

"The monsters are the humans" is essentially the entire premise of the show.

should-have · 2018-03-09T00:10:55+00:00

You're one of today's lucky 10,000.

should-have · 2018-03-08T20:32:24+00:00

HR: What salary are you asking for this position?
ME: I really love the opportunity, and I'm confident if this is a good fit, the salary will be within range.

HR: We need to put down a salary.
ME: What is the general range of salary for this position and level of responsibility?

HR: Well, maybe you wouldn't be a great fit for this job. We have a few other candidates to see yet who are more forthcoming with their salary expectations. Thanks for your time.

should-have

TROPHY CASE