I have always used an ad blocker in the browser, but i recently jumped on the DNS blocking train and it’s like a whole new kind of awesome on my phone in particular.

Get a skein of medium-weight yarn in a light color (it’s easier to see what you’re doing) and whatever the recommend hook size it says on the label. Then watch some tutorials for basic stitches. I’d start making a little pot holder kinda thing with double or half-double crochet stitch. It’s small enough that you can get used to turning rows, and it’ll work up pretty fast with the medium weight yarn to give you some nice dopamine when you finish.

I would definitely recommended learning with just regular yarn, nothing fancy, until you get used to it. Yarn with lots of variability in the weight (as i expect plastic bags would have) is going to be difficult if you’re not comfortable with the basics.

I’m actually kind of OK with that b/c it pushes it to the bottom of the comments, so it’s out of the way but still easy to find if i’m curious.

platformers very often include coyote-time to make jumps feel better and to account for imprecise reaction times of players, but that would be cool to see it as a legit mechanic

I truly appreciate the pic! They’ve been putting in a new housing development nearby, and apparently have no idea how to NOT knock my power out at least once a week (which as a work-from-home programmer is… not ideal). So I am just gonna wait until the blasting calms down before i try to figure it out again lol

Same here. It was a life-changing discovery. Until the power went out and all the settings got reset… Too bad I’m a lazy asshole. Those were some good ol’ days…

It’s not about size. It’s the fact that the United States of America has the word “America” in it. And I don’t refer to the US as “America” (unless I’m being cheeky, though in those cases, I spell it 'Murica), but I do refer to people from the US as “American”.

And I know this is all kinda pedantic. I just think it’s fun to talk about words. I get the feeling you read some snark into my pervious comment, but that really wasn’t my goal.

Ok. I get it. There are people in the Americas that are not from the US. But do you call people from the United Mexican States “Unitied Mexican Stateans”? No, that sounds ridiculous. I think that it’s silly anyway to call everyone from either Americas “American” anyway; they are two different continents! “North American” or “South American” would be better, if you must get so broad with your adjectives (but really, continent-wide generalizations of people are rarely useful anyway). Sorry for the rant.

I agree that it’s nonsense, and thanks for pointing out that I can look up European nutrition facts – i’m gonna start doing that. I wish we’d do the per 100g thing, but we don’t which makes it easier for companies to game the system. My point was that nutrition facts don’t always tell the whole story, especially if your country’s regulatory bodies have been lobbied into submission by the companies they are supposed to be regulating, so finding out if your tea has added sugars may not be as simple as looking on the box.

Tic Tacs say 0g sugar in the nutrition facts, even though they’re mostly sugar. They can do this because they aren’t required to report quantities of sugar below 0.5g, but the serving size is 1 tic tac or, conveniently, 0.49g.

Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences because their time is more valuable? Do you at least SEE the parallel I’m trying to draw here?

And I already admitted that I don’t know what the optimal metric is. I just know that a flat fine that is the same for everyone, without taking into account their financial situation at all, is unfair.

I prefer the way the Hobbits do it: 12 months of 30 days, then 5 (or 6) days straight of winter holiday/new year festivities. But I would totally get behind this calendar in a heartbeat, too.

I agree that everyone should be equal under the law, but that doesn’t mean that fixed fines are fair. The same amount of money has a different value to different people, and that perceived value changes depending on one’s income and wealth.

IDK if you saw my edit in my previous response with the community service example, but I think that might help clear up where we’re diverging. If it takes me 10 hours of work to make enough money to pay the fine, but it takes you 100 hours of work to pay the fine for the exact same offense because our salaries are different, were we really punished equally?

1. stealing != traffic violation. while stealing may have a fine associated with it, it’s generally based on restitution for the goods stolen + legal fees etc. So, you’re moving the goal posts on me, and my feelings about how to handle theft of necessities is tangential to the discussion (for the record, my feelings are: if you see someone stealing necessities, no you didn’t).

2. You seem to not be getting that the goal should be equal deterrence regardless of income or wealth or whatever the most fair metric happens to be. IDK what the baseline fine should be, nor what the most fair way to scale the fines should be b/c i’m a chemist, not a sociologist or legal scholar. But at the end of the day, if the only punishment is a fine, the wealthy don’t have to give a shit.

Edit: for #2, let’s use time instead of money. If instead of paying a $1000 fine, you could do community service. But the “value” of your community service is tied to your wage/salary. So, someone making $10/hr has to do 100 hrs of community service, while someone else making $100/hr only has to do 10 hrs of community service. Is that still fair in your view?

if the goal of the fine is to deter people from committing a traffic violation, the person making $150k will not be equally deterred compared to the person making $75k. If the fine has too little impact, it no longer works as a deterrent. This is especially true for things like parking tickets, where you aren’t necessarily putting yourself or others in danger like you might be for speeding (though, assuming the two people only differ in their income and all other variables – like how willing they are to drive dangerously – remain equal, then the point still stands).

Is the quality not trash anymore? Maybe it’s gotten better and i didn’t notice, but music over the telephone has always sounded muddy and distorted to me.

But… you never get to hear it because when do you ever call yourself? So it’s just subjecting everyone else to a song that they may not even like… And besides, the quality was like listening to an underwater phonograph cylinder.

(obviously don’t know your music taste; you may actually have had a great song of decent quality. but i wouldn’t trust everyone with that power lol)

y’all remember the “ring back” tones? i don’t think they ever really took off since they are a ring tone that people hear when they call you instead, which is… just… totally idiotic… but i did encounter it a few times in the wild.

It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.

I’m arguing that infinity bowling balls weighs more than infinity feathers, though

but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions

oh, you mean like taking the ratio of the derivatives of two functions?

it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity

but that’s not the scenario. The question is whether $100x is more valuable than $1x as x goes to infinity. The number of bills is infinite (and you are correct that adding one more bill is still infinity bills), but the value of the money is a larger $infinity if you have $100 bills instead of $1 bills.

Edit: just for clarity, the original comment i replied to said

Lhopital’s rule doesn’t fucking apply when it comes to infinity. Why are so many people in this thread using lhopital’s rule. Yes, it gives us the limit as x approaches infinity but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions that are trying to make infinity go faster, this is not possible. Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.