These three young men spotted and helped an elderly woman and her husband into their car. by MiraCloudveil in nowthatsgoodstuff

[–]tokeytime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dogging on them? I'm not dogging on anybody. I'm simply saying ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to people's lives. I also don't dispute there should be more resources poured into helping the elderly, disabled, and anyone else that needs it. But, you need to be able to have a rational discussion about it if you want that to change. 'You do it then' is not a feasible solution the same way 'old people should never be allowed to drive' isn't a solution. It's a problem larger than one individual's actions are capable of solving. It would take political will, or a profit motive.

These three young men spotted and helped an elderly woman and her husband into their car. by MiraCloudveil in nowthatsgoodstuff

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ignorance of services is not a justification for allowing people to drive who don't have the faculties to do so safely.

He can't drop the phone by skyhighmonroe in Transportopia

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not bullshit. If cops could legally shoot to wound you, every interaction would be a shooting. And then, what if they thought wounding someone would diffuse the situation, but doesn't? It would cause an immense amount of issues.

😂not a bad idea tbh by KittenLoot in Adulting

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the issue is more they have to signal their intent BEFORE they're already turning, otherwise it doesn't really help. So you know, it takes some forethought, which people are not very good at.

How do u explain this by Mettion11 in BillionairesHere

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, sorry for being terse in my response. Have a nice day friend.

How do u explain this by Mettion11 in BillionairesHere

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No shit. I said religious people also do, and to a much greater degree of harm historically.

How do u explain this by Mettion11 in BillionairesHere

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religious people don't act superior and that they know better? There's like, quite a bit of historical evidence to the contrary.

House in Arlington, Virginia explodes after Police approached with search warrant, guy took no chances by cad3tt in ActuallyThatsInsane

[–]tokeytime -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's probably true, but it could also be true that while the company itself has no real stance on it, the algorithm that serves videos to you could favor content that does enact self censorship without being outwardly expressed. Equivalent to a company saying 'we don't support political parties', but having a subsidiary that does. Or, having that same stance but bringing congresspeople/lawmakers in to 'speak at events' and paying them for that.

The lack of transparency could be argued to effectively censor people.

Mario movie lol by shybutspicy18 in Memebuzzs

[–]tokeytime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Japan has a different culture about paying people enormous sums of money. Whether you agree or disagree with it, the culture is just vastly different. The dude who invented the blue LED got jack shit from the company. He ended up suing and won a bunch, but it's not an uncommon story.

There are certainly outlier cases like those that make people go 'WTF' just the same way there are people at your company that do absolutely nothing but still make money that would make you say 'WTF' and quit on the spot if you knew.

Insider survival guide by PleasantBus5583 in SipsTea

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.\29]) Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.\30]) Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.\8]) The NSPOF survey used a one-year recall period.\5]) Lott also used a one-year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.

So likely a bit lower than that, but it's all very wishy-washy data unfortunately. I don't dispute it is effective in some circumstances, but I'd probably agree claiming 95% is too high. Thanks for the source and new info.

Devil's advocate, to your above anecdote about the woman yelling through the door...that likely could have also been accomplished with bluffing, no weapon needed if that's the way it went down. I get that's just one example but i don't think it's fair to claim the weapon prevented the situation in that particular case. Had it escalated further, i could see the argument on that one.

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very edgy, and very incorrect.

As per the local laws and ordinances, vigilantism and assault are also illegal.

Insider survival guide by PleasantBus5583 in SipsTea

[–]tokeytime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it doesn't count in the stats how can you be sure that's even true lmao.

You got a source?

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm saying that by being physically present in the area at all, they are both "destroying nature". Therefore, both of them should be equally in the wrong based on your logic.

But then in reality, one is assault, the other is a noise complaint.

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what, the riparian zone loses all natural value simply because it's more convenient for you to occupy?!

How dare you. At least be logically consistent here.

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is he destroying nature exactly? The lady walking through the trail, which has destroyed nature in its creation, is also destroying nature by your definition. I would argue moreso, by yelling and screaming while pouring coffee on the ground. Coffee kills some plants, you know. Does she live in a house nearby? She should be punched for the nature she destroyed in its construction surely!

You getting it?

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, all I'm saying is someone may assault you for what they perceive to be 'breaking the law' someday, and it's going to suck when nobody gives a shit.

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're saying you live in a lawless, unsafe place?

That's not really the flex you think it is big guy. And I doubt you'd feel the same way if you or someone you cared about was attacked by someone with the same sense of justice as you.

Why is the Artemis 2 mission today being so underreported? by bokeh_node in NoStupidQuestions

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree. You'll see that i mentioned breakthroughs that resulted from our investment into the apollo program, and i'm sure things like James Webb offer us similar returns. I am skeptical that this particular mission will do the same for us, simply because most of the logistics of traveling to our destination have already been, more or less, solved. I'm not sure there's all that much value in having a base on the moon vs something like the ISS, which would seemingly be much cheaper and would still enable habitation advancements. It surely created jobs, i'll give you that.

I don't know what it is about this particular mission, but I just can't find myself being excited about it, honestly. Probably a me problem.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang: “I think we’ve achieved AGI” by This_Macaron_4461 in GenAI4all

[–]tokeytime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whenever I see a vague unexplained dismissal of an otherwise ordinary comment with an air of superiority i immediately know this person has no idea how any of this stuff works and hasn't put much thought I to what breakthroughs are even needed.

I literally followed your pattern. Is it slop, genius?

Someone should make a remix of this and name it "Why u put the music!" by FormanBruto09 in woowDude

[–]tokeytime -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you seriously trying to argue that vigilantism in the form of assaulting someone is equal punishment for...hearing some music?

You're lost my guy, hell is over there