I think your question is misguided. Democracy doesn’t mean a two-party system race to the bottom. Democracy can see democratically elected politicians that better resonate with each individual voter by eliminating first past the post voting and using ranked choice voting instead. The problem isn’t that “half the country disagrees”. You can’t please everyone. The problem is that we’ve been divided and weaponized against each other, so the tribalism keeps us from finding common ground we may have. I doubt anyone votes FOR a candidate anymore. They seem to just vote AGAINST another candidate. Democracy works. It’s our implementation of it that’s failing.

I would assume that’s exactly what they’d do when he’s released after his sentence is served.

I lost my job six months ago and am currently struggling to find another. Even if I did find another job that paid what I was getting paid before, I would not and could not pay for your cancer medication. But that doesn’t mean I would choose to turn a blind eye to it. I would continue to fight for basic human rights to water, food, a home, and healthcare, because that’s what I’ve believed in and will continue to believe in. Maybe I wouldn’t change anything in your lifetime or mine, but I’ll still try. And maybe in a few generations, once we’re gone, we opened the door for them to have those things that allow us to keep our dignity.

I won’t pretend to know how you feel, so I won’t give you any platitudes. How you choose to live your life is your own decision, and I won’t insult you by pitying you. Your struggle doesn’t mean it’s impossible for you to make somebody else’s life any better or worse, though, just through simple human interactions. Sure, people are starving, dying, and going through much worse than me, or even you. That takes nothing away from the problems we encounter, the joy or pain we feel. I’ll do what I can to influence my circumstance, because nobody gets to tell me I can’t do something. When possible, I’ll try to do the same for others, even if nobody sees it or gives me a pat on the back. I’ll hold out hope that others might do the same for me when they can, but I won’t expect it because I’m not owed it.

I’m not saying any of this to prove I’m better than you in any way or to win an Internet argument. Call me whatever names you like. I promise I won’t respond beyond this comment. I simply wish you well, or at least better than at present.

Buddy, I hope you have a better day than you’re currently having. I’m not sure what purpose putting your opinion on the Internet served if you were going to pretend it and any responses to it are pointless. Take care of yourself, man. You’re talking like nothing and nobody matters. In the cosmic sense, you’re right. Humanity, is just a flash in the pan, so none of us individually matters. In a human sense, even a small act of kindness might change somebody else’s life, and I think those moments DO matter. I don’t want to tell you how to live your life and I genuinely hope you don’t misconstrue what I’m saying. I do actually hope you can live just a small amount less cynically and can see some positivity, despite how our political system and news keep pushing the negative in our faces day after day. I don’t think hope is just for fools.

It feels like you completely ignored my argument against outlawing fast cars and simply moved to your argument about SUVs and trucks. If you choose to hand-wave my points because you’re “thinking of the children”, then I see no merit in your argument. And you’re saying that what I said is invalid because I believe the bill will pass? But that you can say whatever because you’re fed up with the government’s ineffectiveness so you’re just being bombastic? That detracts from your own statements, if you’re admitting your own rhetoric is just for effect because you have no faith in politicians.

I’m not talking about SUVs, trucks, politicians, or the US legal system. You made a point that cars that drive over 65 shouldn’t be made, and I countered. I don’t hear anything from you except “politicians won’t fix it” while turning around and saying “fast cars should be illegal”, which would require those very same politicians you’ve lost faith in to somehow be effective enough to pass that very legislation.

You talk as if cars are appliances. Hell, even appliances go overboard. Why does a toaster or fridge need WiFi? Why does my washer or dryer have downloadable custom cycles? Because innovation is what sets companies and products apart. It’s not always done “right”, but who’s to judge if a feature is superfluous? You? What makes you qualified?

Cars aren’t just machines to get you from A to B. They certainly can be, but they’re also a fashion item, a status symbol, marvels of engineering, and a tool for testing your skill. Cars can be taken to a racetrack and driven hard. Just because something is being misused doesn’t mean it should either be illegal or shouldn’t be made. Your view on this is incredibly myopic. Just because you aren’t into cars doesn’t mean the “right” thing to do is make all cars the same. And before you suggest making fast cars track only, that would be absurd and make the hobby even less approachable. Not everyone can have two vehicles (apartment buildings that only allow one vehicle, or a city with limited parking). That would be the same as when governments require permits for a product or activity, but make the permits impossible to get.

Other countries have figured out how to handle this situation in different ways. Germany has a harder test for getting your license. Not every idiot can pass. Some countries in Europe make fines a percentage of your income instead of a flat fee. That means breaking the law hurts everyone to a similar degree, rather than rich people paying the fine without a second thought as just the cost of doing business. If you really have a problem with cars then at least get creative with your solution. Trying to stamp them out is genuinely worse than this proposed bill.

It makes perfect sense. It’s about control by any means. The fact of the matter is that, by definition, conservatives don’t want progress. They’ll say and do anything to stand in the way of progress, even if it’s contradictory.

Jirard’s words were unambiguous over the years, though. It was always “we’re working with…” or “we’ve donated to…” and not “we’re looking at these charities”. I don’t know what the rationale for hanging on to that money was, whether it was for the right reasons or not. What I do know is that people were lied to. It doesn’t matter if he intended to or not. It’s not a good spot to be in, and I can’t imagine it gets much better from here. The whole thing felt very much like w crypto scam, except the money was still available, but there was a whole lot of “trust me, bro” and misrepresentation of what was happening behind the scenes.

How many years of research do you need in order to pick the charity or university you want to fund? How many times do you repeat the lies (with numbers!) without even knowing what your own charity is doing? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a different reason they hung on to the money, because this doesn’t pass the sniff test. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

I don’t know if you recall, but Zillow was found to be price fixing as well a few years back. They were buying up real estate, then pumping the Zestimate of any houses they owned. I remember seeing people compiling data on Reddit, tracking home values before the house sold to Zillow, and after. Zillow is just as shitty, and just as much of a middle man. So, yes, Zillow can do a lot of what the Realtor does, but I’d argue we deserve better.

I doubt exclusion of men from this feature has anything to do with it being more work to add men. Hell, it’s actually LESS work to enable it for everyone than it is to add exclusions. Excluding men was a business decision, I’m sure.

Now, I’m in the privileged position of being male, so take this with a grain of salt, but I entirely disagree with the blatant sexism of this feature. I get the purpose, but it feels horribly misguided. Can women not commit violent or sexual crimes? Can nonbinary people not commit violent or sexual crimes? Only men can apparently commit these crimes, according to the people who thought this feature up. Sexual crimes by women, for example, go wildly underreported…Even if they were using statistics to justify how they implemented this feature, they didn’t do their homework.

Ah, sorry. I think I confused Telltale and Double Fine.

Shit, I’d take four 10-hour workdays and a day off over five 8-hour workdays. It’s not about the hours per week, but about being able to enjoy a full day to myself.

I haven’t heard anything about this until now, but I loved the Monkey Island games. I started with Monkey Island 3 because I was too young to be aware of the other two. I didn’t like the fourth one much because they changed the style a lot. I think DoubleFine did made a few Monkey Island games after, but I haven’t played those.

The Lucas Arts games of this era were amazing, so let’s see if this will live up to them, since it seems to be aiming for that. Full Throttle was sick, and I would love if somehow Full Throttle 2 were to still happen. Insert skeleton “still waiting” meme.

FOR FREE?! Girl, you need to be getting paid for all that!

What did you use to print them? Is it hard plastic like PLA? I’m contemplating getting into 3D printing, and if they were anywhere between wood and silicone in hardness I’d be thrilled.

I’m struggling to understand the role a grand jury played here and why they wrote a report. Maybe somebody with more legal experience can chime in and clear that up.

It’s my understanding that a grand jury is convened prior to indictment and consulted as a step to strengthen the prosecution of a case. The grand jury chooses to indict and can compel the testimony of those involved. This, however, sounds like it was past pre-trial phases. So what was the purpose of convening a grand jury at this point?

Then there’s the petit jury, which is the jury of 12 everyone thinks of when they hear the word “jury”, which is the group of people responsible for making a formal, unanimous decision at the end of a trial, assuming the defendant didn’t waive their right to a jury trial. It almost sounds like the article is talking about the petit jury, but makes a mistake and calls them a grand jury. Confusingly, I still don’t understand why a petit jury would be writing a report, either.

Since the jury is just made up of average people, who writes the report? How do they know what the format needs to be? The report sounds damning, but these people aren’t law enforcement or legal experts, so how much weight does their report carry? I think they’re right, mind you, especially given the judge’s admonishment of the police officer, but I’m just left with many more questions than answers.