Louis Ingenthron

If he was actively trying to be the least popular president ever, what would he be doing differently?

Option 1: Vibe code the project. In 5 years, pay someone like me an insane amount of money to redo it in a way that's scalable and secure.

Option 2: Pay someone like me a little bit up-front to determine how viable your project is, then get a lifetime guarantee on any work I do after that.

Lmao, Waffle House banned the Trumpy candidate for Florida Governor from all of its restaurants, threatening criminal trespass if he tried to come on to the property to campaign there.

www.wfla.com/news/florida...

Right, but my understanding is that even if you only engage in your small subcommunity, the system will still feed you right-wing conspiracies and Elon Musk tweets.

So, when people *choose* to use the example of scolds as a reason not to migrate, I feel compelled to weigh it against that.

Yeah, but if enough of them get pissed off enough to just stay home, that could still tip the scales.

If people are openly admitting that they find being scolded about their language more uncomfortable than regularly interacting with people who believe that Jews control the weather and trans people are grooming your kids, does that not legitimately imply some pretty terrible things about them?

It's possible, but most of the traits I'm inferring are downstream from the idea that "BlueSky is full of language scolds but X is a good place to speak" when X is literally designed at a systemic level to algorithmically suppress words that its owner doesn't like and promote hateful speech.

If human rights are limited to certain groups, they are not really human rights, are they?

If they were mostly off social media entirely, I could sympathize with the "BlueSky is full of scolds" claim.

But they're on X? Damn, their brain must be cooked.

Right! I should be obsessively collecting junk because of my OCD, not because I need it to build a lamp!

And, my god, the amount of literal adhesive farming... who thought *that* was a good idea?

No, that's an AI hallucination of an AI hallucination of nonsense.

People need to stop treating AI like a reputable source just because it's spitting out information about itself.

Are you using Claude’s output to argue that Claude’s output can’t be trusted?

Wait, are you relying on Claude to accurately describe how Claude failed to be accurate before? Seriously?

Yes, agreed, the companions were undoubtedly the bright spot in that game.

And it wasn't even the annoyance of the "settlement needs something" that bothered me... it just felt like a totally different game. Am I gonna play base builder or shooty-explory in my session tonight? Almost never both!

(But also because the main story was terrible)

Yeah, it may be nostalgia, but I always thought Fallout 4 was the weakest entry in the series, mainly because the weird half-baked base-building features ultimately detracted from the experience.

I once subdued a shark single-handedly while unarmed.

Is this what leads to our first mass grave?

Capt. Cody A. Khork, 35, of Winter Haven, Fla.

Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, 42, of Bellevue, Neb.

Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, 39, of White Bear Lake, Minn.

Sgt. Declan J. Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa.

Put some goddamn respect on their names.

As I understand it, historically, even things like blockades were considered acts of war, so directly bombing people in their homes should objectively count.

But do our domestic definitions even apply to international rules of engagement?

Domestically, the problem seems very simple: The law/constitution is meaningless so long as elected officials refuse to uphold/enforce it. Everything else is just downstream of that.

Fair, but that's still internal to us.

Internally, we draw this irrational distinction between "not at war but blowing stuff up" vs "at war" whereas the rest of the world draws that same distinction as "at illegal war" vs "at war".

I think if you're blowing each other's stuff up, you're unquestionably at war, no matter what the bureaucrats say.

The real question here is simply whether or not it's a "legal" war, and without congressional approval, it's not. But being at illegal war is still being at war.

Yes, I think it's pretty clear we are. One can be drawn into being "at war" by being attacked, so it stands to reason that by striking first, we established ourselves as being, de facto, "at war", even if Congress says nothing. Especially where the rules of engagement are concerned.

Glad people are settling on the term "pervert glasses". Bonus points if you also say it while posting a picture of Mark Zuckerberg or call them Mark Zuckerberg's pervert glasses.

You planning to live-post through this one tomorrow?

I plan to have popcorn ready.

It is me with DRUGS™️ in my office, holding the two custom circuit-bent PS2s he made for me.

"The Hunter" model custom circuit-bent PS2 by DRUGS™️ with my name painted on it and custom green LED skull knobs.

Details of the custom skull knobs

"The Speedrunner" model custom circuit-bent PS2 by DRUGS™️ in my office, with its glitch visuals appearing on televisions throughout the room.

Behold, circuit-bent PS2s custom-made for me by DRUGS™️ ! They even have custom skull knobs! These are incredibly powerful glitch instruments that bend the games themselves (not the video output) in real-time, glitching polygons & textures to completely deconstruct the visuals from within. 🧵

I'm sorry, if you're going to make a big show about how you've got a Department of WAR helmed by a Secretary of WAR and staffed by WARfighters, it's totally inane to then claim that your massive bombing of a foreign country constitutes something other than a war.

From this point forward, anyone who hires a firm that folded to Trump is a bigger sucker than they were.

Kermit the frog sitting on a log surrounded by flowers Text: "what radicalised you?" empathy bro, literally just wanting people to be treated like human beings