u/ContextEffects01

In other hierarchal institutions, if you have a problem with your immediate supervisor, you're still supposed to try to resolve it with them first, but if you have demonstrated a reasonable effort to do so and failed it's considered acceptable to consult your immediate supervisor's immediate supervisor.

Who, in Sobel's case, is regiment commander Col. Sink.

Was it an option during training for the NCOs to approach his office, ask permission to speak, to raise one's concerns about Sobel being lost during training, and to ask Sobel if he'd willing to consider changing roles before combat commences? Perhaps Sobel wouldn't take it well, but I would think that'd at least that'd stop short of mutiny.

Was it an option, if that failed, to turn to Col. Sink and explain to him the situation with Sobel? Not sure if it'd still amount to insubordination for going over Sobel's head but it certainly sounds less extreme a form of it than quitting en masse.

Finland restricted private schools. The result? Everyone had a stake in the outcome of public schools. No one could escape. So the rich had no choice but to improve schooling, for students and teachers alike.

Meanwhile, hellholes like Canada allow private schools, the rich abandon the public system because their kids can go to a private school, and then those who have the money to help fix the system have no incentive to bother. And then we wonder why our schools are such cesspools and everyone is so numb to it as to sit out school board elections.

We need to learn from this, in the context of other issues than just schools. We need to force everyone; rich and poor, environmentalist and non-environmentalist; to have a stake in making public transit work.

"Oh, but I need to get to work and back!" So do environmentalists. So do the poor.

"Oh, but what if I'm an environmentalist who drives an electric car"? There is no such thing. Look at what the mining industry does to its employees, much less the environment. If the consumer is innocent in that, then by that standard, so too are people whose cars use an internal combustion engine.

I'm so sick and tired of being meek and mild toward motorists. What did we get in return? They walked all over the rest of us. It's time to fight back.

I remember a few years ago people suggesting he be arrested but no specifics on what makes him in particular legally responsible on a criminal level for said crowd crush.

AI models train on stolen content.

Period.

If the wealthy weren't so disproportionately powerful in society, it would be a crime.

It's already against the rules for students to plagiarize their assignments (here's a tip, education system; assign more grade weighting to tests and less to assignments), yet AI data centers get away with using it to impersonate people's likenesses and enable deepfakes.

When people speak of wanting to keep up with China, what possible harm that China does could be offset by the private sector? It was the private sector that outsourced to China in the first place. Why should we expect it to be in their interest to fight back?

At least the gov't seizing the data centres makes them... closer to being beholden to the public, if not 100% so due to lobbyists.

There’s a scene in the Demented Cartoon Movie where two kids are bored and don’t know what to do, so they decide to play “toss the h bomb.”

Childhood Internet access isn’t as different as people like to pretend.

People might think such a comparison unfair to the Internet. I say it’s unfair to nuclear weapons. The Nagasaki bomb killed tens of thousands of people. The *Internet* killed *hundreds* of thousands through Facebook’s role in the Rohingya Massacre.

But hey, there’s a tradeoff there. The Internet *can* circumvent corporate and governmental power over TV and radio, to some extent. So the question is where the tradeoff lies.

And I say that, at the very least, keeping such a vile steady stream of propaganda out of reach of children should take priority over the rest of us having it.

If we can’t scrap the Internet altogether, perhaps society should consider whether starting over en masse; with a fresh new understanding that this was never going to be appropriate for kids and should be kept away from them at all costs.

So the US clings to its ridiculous measurement system; the imperial system. Feet, pounds, inches, yards, miles... no rhyme or reason to the relationship between them.

The metric system, on the other hand, has a comparatively base-10 system. Centimetres are ten times larger than milimetres, just as decimetres are ten times larger than centimetres, just as metres are ten times larger than decimetres, etc... making square metres, by extension, 100 times larger than square decimetres, or 10000 times larger than square centimetres, etc... a logical system that makes things simpler.

Unfortunately, in practice this just complicates things when converting between systems of measurement. The Gimli Glider was underfueled because of poor conversion between units, all because one country's stubborn insistent on the imperial system has yet to allow it to become forgotten. Speaking of aviation, pilot reports often involve a bizarre blend of metric and imperial, sometimes to the point of including "kilofeet."

This to me is a microcosm of US-world relations. The US keeps doing dumb things the rest of the world has to accommodate (invading Iraq and causing ISIS, which spilled into Europe, clinging to the imperial system) and then trying to pretend it's everyone else who's the problem ("gee if only they all signed onto our idiotic war based on lies we might've been able to occupy Iraq forever," "gee if only they all stuck to imperial there'd be no conversion confusion" etc...).

When I first heard of Zero Wing's poorly translated intro, I knew phrases like "are belong to us" were invalid, but I could have sworn something sounded vaguely familiar from elsewhere about "you have no chance to survive make your time", as if something similar were said in a context that meant "you have no chance to survive, given your time." Am I remembering things wrong?

Suppose some undiscovered deposits of gold or silver were found, and they were quickly developed to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, and/or to devalue the gold or silver supplies of one's rivals.

A. Are there known geological limits on how large/numerous any yet-undiscovered deposits thereof could turn out to be?

B. How do the aforementioned relate to how easily the form it is found in can be processed into the pure element? Are the more abundant forms significantly harder / slower / more expensive to process?

To summarize for the most relevant aspects of this, Frank is a desk cop assigned to street duty because of the Blue Flu situation. Frank ends up deliberately removing a minority suspect's handcuffs just to have an excuse to shoot him dead. His partner arrives soon enough to see the suspect; who he had previously seen handcuffed; collapsing from a gunshot wound against the side of a building, but not soon enough to see the cuffs removed in the first place, however likely said partner knows it is that Frank was the one who removed them.

1. Legally speaking, would the cops who misused sick leave en masse be partly liable for Frank's actions, in their capacity as people whose misuse of sick leave made the department desperate enough to assign Frank to street duty in the first place?

2. How if at all was Frank going to explain the situation to his partner, even if he had taken longer to show up? It's not like going from seeing a suspect handcuffed to later finding him dead with a bullet in him has a wider variety of alternative explanations. Was he going to put the handcuffs back on and claim the suspect was the victim of a drive-by shooting or something? Was he going to claim an accomplice showed up to remove the handcuffs, leading to a shootout before he could call for backup?

I just read about the story of the diabetic employee who was denied the right to have fast-acting sugar like fruit juice at her desk in case of life-threatening hypoglycemia.

And was denied it.

A literal matter of life and death. And they didn't even care.

And used the fruit juice to save her own life and was fired for it.

It is no longer enough to sue them, we need to nationalize them. If this is what they'll do to diabetics with the risk of life threatening hypoglycemia hanging over their head, what would they do to people with lesser known medical ailments?

Even if the higher-ups were ignorant about diabetes, the same applies. What else could they be ignorant about?

To hell with the "right to run one's own business", this stupid imaginary "right" could get someone killed. It's time for the state to forcibly nationalize Dollar General. Nothing less will do.

...and neither the front and back cover nor text of the book are facing the viewer of the show nor the in-show audience.

Then continues to read the next part verbatim without even having to look at it, as if having the next part memorized.

This sort of thing seems vaguely familiar, I'm just not sure from where.

Both movies featured homages to a variety of things both within (Mario Bros Super Show intro music) and outside (Star Fox) the series, much less a variety of things that blur the distinction between the two categories (eg. Donkey Kong).

Yet Mario Party had an oddly military-esque drum beat for what was ostensibly the music for characters gathering coins from minigames in a party game. It would seem to be perfectly fitting for a Koopa Troopa march, especially in movies with multiple opportunities in each to depict marching.

Why didn’t they go for it?

Think of it this way.

What is the worst way the right to withhold access to a show from whole countries can be misused? Any radio or TV host with a bias opposite those of a particular nationality has deprived them of a chance to comment live on Facebook about the show from as informed a perspective at possible. At best, they're relying on hearsay from others about the content of the show, which could be used against them; and by extension, the rest of their worldview; if they get it wrong. This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents, this is a matter of tilting the table against those who disagree with the host and making all dissenters against them look dumber than they actually are.

What's the worst way making such shows accessible for free to countries can be misused? They could hone their skills at pirating it and continue to do so after the show is available for purchase. Well, punish the individuals who do that, I guess, but don't punish their predecessors. In the oil fields, you have a finite amount of time to either develop the oil, or step aside and let others do so. In other words, you don't own that land. So why do content creators who deny a live version of their show to prospective paying customers have the right to withhold from them something they never had the option of buying?

I remember there were two times the rap track "Azz And Tittiez" was playing. The first one was at the dinner table. The second one I don't recall, but Google search says it was when Cam Brady's wife left him and took the kids, in response to the sex tape he made with his opponent's wife. Strangely said tape is featured in the Netflix version, but it seems like Cam's wife leaving him over it is not. Is the version of The Campaign I rented years ago some extended cut of it or something?

There is also a scene where the sex offender is playing chess with the kid who grows up to bring a case against the killer. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

I was watching the Wildwood earthcam and heard emergency sirens, but the NWS page doesn't show any tornado warning.

A. Is there any particular reason there's such an emphasis on the greenish-blue aesthetic, especially in nighttime scenes?

B. Did Ofelia know that the injury inflicted to her brother by the Faun's knife would be non-life-threatening and refuse on principle, or did she think the Faun intended to kill him?

C. Why did the rebels use a gun instead of a knife within such close proximity to an infant whose hearing could be damaged? Were they afraid Vidal would try to run if they used a knife? If so why didn't they surround him as soon as he walked out of the labyrinth?

I’m referring to punching Tony Soprano’s sister in the face. Over questioning his quarrel with his son’s ballroom dancing, of all things. Was he expecting Tony’s squabbles with his sister to outweigh his combined disgust at the thought of her being outright assaulted by someone else, much less by a man who claimed to love her?