It’s an interesting question, but whose responsibility are you proposing it is to find another actress? Who’s paying that actress? Is the library going to pay twice as much, or is the existing actress expected to work the same amount of time for half the money to accommodate this second actress?

At the end of the article the quote from the black actress I think eloquently summed up what feels weird about it.

It’s a weird argument to make here, though, because this isn’t a white actor vs. black actor question at all. The library isn’t choosing between one or the other. There’s only one actor, no matter what characters are being played. If they were responding by saying “Actually we want to hire a black actor to play these characters,” I’d get it, and agree with that, but they aren’t. They’re just choosing to not have black figures represented at the performance at all, which seems… worse, somehow? I don’t know.

Not only that, it’s a meaningless requirement. There’s subs on Reddit that exist solely to farm karma. You make a post, everyone upvotes it, done.

Given the specifics, I don’t see any problem with what she’s doing. It’s not like a white woman was being cast to play a black character instead of a black woman; she put together a one-woman show that she is the sole performer in. The library even (initially) asked her to play the black characters, then changed their mind.

If someone here disagrees, I’d be interested to hear why.

You could just look up articles on his policies - given his high profile status, they’re all over right now.

The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”

Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.

It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

It wouldn’t exonerate you, unless you could prove beyond a doubt that it was you using the phone. It’d be easy, if you were planning a murder, to give an accomplice your phone and have them use it all night to cover for you. It might be able to be used in conjunction with other evidence, though, to assist in your defense.

I didn’t say I was unwilling to change my mind; I said that it became clear that it wasn’t going to be changed by the people replying. If you want to debate it, my DMs are open, but leave the ad hominem attacks out of it or it’ll be a very short discussion.

Well, to answer your other comment, it’s replies like this that made me realize it’s just not worth trying to have a discussion with the folks who disagree with me, because I won’t change their mind, and they won’t change mine. I think you (and the majority of folks replying here) are not considering the simple fact that taking away spaces occupied by people you dislike will not make them go away - it’ll just make them try to take over your spaces, instead (hence the Nazi bar analogy).

Regardless, I’m not going to engage any further here. If you want to have a rational discussion, you can DM me and I’ll happily discuss it with you. I had my say, everyone else had theirs, and I don’t really think there’s anything more that needs to be said.

I think my viewpoint is akin to the Nazi bar analogy. I don’t want to drink at a Nazi bar, but I’m glad the Nazi bar exists, because it gives the Nazis somewhere to go that’s isolated and away from everyone else. I’d rather these people hold their own event and congregate there than go protest at a pride parade or whatever else they might be doing, and I don’t think ‘kicking the hornet’s nest’ by trying to disrupt them is really helping anyone. Case in point, I’d never heard about them before, and wouldn’t have if this article hadn’t been written, which it wouldn’t have been if nobody had crashed the event.

I feel like this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but… really, I don’t see a problem with these people having this event, and I think the person who got up to sing the pro-LGBTQ+ song was in the wrong here. But let me explain before you crucify me.

It’s pride month, and they have anti-LGBTQ+ views. Holding their own event for people with similar views is by far preferable to going and causing problems at pride events, and while I don’t agree with their views, I support their freedom to hold them, given they aren’t causing problems for others, which it sounds like they weren’t.

An LGBTQ+ person “crashing” their event isn’t really any different from an anti-LGBTQ+ person crashing a pride event, which I’d obviously have a problem with, so I think it’d be somewhat hypocritical to applaud someone for doing it to these people, however much I disagree with their viewpoint.

Edit: Yep, knew it’d be unpopular. Rather than just downvoting me, though, why not tell me why you disagree?

As far as I’m aware, death punishment is not what happened to any of those that refused during Vietnam or Afghanistan.

“Life-ending consequences” doesn’t necessarily mean literal death. Court martials for serious offenses (which disobeying orders absolutely is) can come with very heavy penalties. It’s possible that it’s a regional colloquialism, but ‘life-ending consequences’ refers to consequences that end “life as you know it”, typically referring to something that is reasonably impossible to recover from.

Trump got democratically elected

Debatable.

thousand of soldiers carried out his orders while they could have refused

Refusing lawful orders comes with life-ending consequences.

Calling them orcs or implying the population is all shit?

Personally, I think equating any population with the actions of its government is a poor move, but you do you.

I have heard that small recurring donations are more helpful in general than larger one-time donations, so that’s what I tend to do - small recurring donations to services I use or creators whose content I consume. I tend to only do this when the service or content is primarily donation-supported, though.

This is also easier for me to manage, because it becomes a monthly recurring cost and I can see easily how much I’m spending on donations and adjust them as needed, whereas with larger one-time donations, I tend to lose track of how much the total is in a given period.

In short, vibe coding kick-started an era in which humans could make computers do new things, rather than the stuff they’d been hard-wired to do at the factory or through installed “software” (another word for “apps”).

Yeah, it sure is a good thing we have AI. Now real people can make computers do the things they want! It’s a novel idea that previously was just unthinkable.

That’s actually a great subject for an XKCD What If - What if all of the CO2 was suddenly removed from the atmosphere, all at once?

Doesn’t actually matter.

A normally weighted die has a weight of 16.67% for each face. No matter what result the first die rolls, the second one has a 16.67% chance of rolling the number needed to total 7. Therefore, the average chance of a (total of) 7 is (16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67 + 16.67) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.

Consider your example: Die #1 has the following weights:

• 1: 0%
• 2: 20%
• 3: 20%
• 4: 20%
• 5: 20%
• 6: 20%

In your example, if die 2 rolls a 6, there’s a 0% chance of a (total of) 7, instead of the normal 16.67%, but if die 2 rolls a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, it has a 20% chance of totaling 7, instead of the normal 16.67%.

The average chance, therefore, is (0 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20) / 6, or, 16.67%, or, 1 in 6.

Without having stats to back it up, it seems perfectly logical to me. Cishet men are the people conservative views benefit the most, and they’re the people folks like Andrew Tate specifically target. If I had to make a blind guess, I’d have said it’s cishet men, too.

The odds that the first die landed on the correct number are 1 in 6, though, so if you’re considering the throw of both dice as a whole, the chance is still 1 in 6 regardless of which die you throw first. (If you’re rolling the unweighted die first and then evaluating the chance of getting a 7 based on that outcome, then you’re correct.)