Welcome to sugarfoots, sugarfoot

My mind is blown. This is very well written. Thank you

Touché

You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it’s still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it’s still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it’s still the world’s most popular painkiller by far.

Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn’t bare any significance to whether or not it’s good for stress in some amount.

Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don’t understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.

But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.

most of the time for no reason at all

Not for no reason. It’s a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you’re a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.

Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because “obamacare” was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it’s a bad word they learned.

Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren’t even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.

It’s control all the way down.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It’s drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon’s think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein’s monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there’s your answer. It’s because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don’t believe me, turn on Fox news. There’s always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.

There will always be those who think they’ll be seen as “one of the good ones”

Careful now, here on this communist instance you could catch a ban for speaking openly about Russian aggression

We just lost the democrat governor who has been blocking stupid bills like this for the last year. Our congress is revenge passing everything they can because the new republican governor blindly rubber stamps it all.

So yeah, a lot of these bills literally are just seeing what they can get away with.

Can confirm. Louisiana is actively getting worse because our congress is in a phase of revenge passing bills that our democrat governor had been blocking for the last 8 years, now that we have a newly elected republican governor.

Here’s the thing: Lots of Republican leaning business owners see it as their right to retaliate against their workers without the gov intervening. So to them, the only thing they see wrong with this is the “child” part, because retaliation against children makes them look bad.

Hence the “they aren’t children” rhetoric.

By the way, this part of the bill was explicitly included by a congressman who owns some franchises and says his underage workers “don’t even want lunch breaks”.

So this is one dude trying to squeeze 20 extra hours of labor from literal children who’s dictating this for the entire state.

I start almost every comment I make on those instances with

I know this will net me a ban

to play a bit of reverse psychology with the mods there, who don’t touch my comments when the denizens there inevitablely say

Oh yeah you think you’re so smart well we don’t ban opposing opinions unlike some places

And the mods there have their hands tied because banning me would prove their own guys wrong.

It’s worked pretty well so far.

Mate, you’re in a communist instance. People here aren’t going to see the writing on the wall because they believe Russia is the good guy in this.

Although cursive has a unified design, everyone writes cursive a little differently. The idea is that cursive is designed to write whole words in a single stroke. The concept of a secure signature in cursive is that the more work a single stroke is, the more uniquely a person writes it.

That is to say, even though you may have the same name as someone else, it’s extremely unlikely that a person can copy your nuances precisely enough to forge your signature on the fly. It isn’t a perfect system, but it’s easy enough to verify a signature that people could do it before technology was around to aid that process.

That concept is also why they say the actual design of your signature is less important than the consistency of doing it the same every time.

Fair enough

Unpopular opinion incoming:

I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.

For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.

If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.

Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.

I think once they’ve done it the first time this outcome is pretty much inevitable. The sad thing is that they only have to do it once before it becomes expected of them by Trump’s party. To them it’s vindication that the system is just out to get them when they say, “We could have charged you what you actually owe but we can also lower it for no reason instead of throwing you in jail”

deleted by creator

I remember seeing those nuts on Facebook and Twitter. But I’ll concede that they’re primarily from 4chan