PhilipTheBucket

joined 3 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 93 points 3 months ago (20 children)

I feel like at some point it needs to be active response. Phase 1 is a teergrube type of slowness to muck up the crawlers, with warnings in the headers and response body, and then phase 2 is a DDOS in response or maybe just a drone strike and cut out the middleman. Once you've actively evading Anubis, fuckin' game on.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 75 points 3 months ago (5 children)

* deny anyone hearings before discharges, as long as someone somewhere alleged that they were transgender or something

The hearings are what determine whether the person is actually transgender or not. It's also horrible to eject transgender people from the military in the first place, but framing it as "all these people are all transgender and we already know that so we don't need a hearing" is its own whole separate class of sinister bullshit.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago

Way-back-when, long before WFH or any of these modern things the kids are up to nowadays, I did consulting from home, and I found it was actually way better to make a "workplace" for myself. I wound up talking with a startup run by friends of mine and they kindly agreed to let me bring my computer in and set up a desk for myself, just so I would have an "office" that was conceptually separate from the "office" in my bedroom. I got a lot more done in there.

One, it was bringing me anxiety, that I would wake up in the morning and my workplace was right in the room with me. Two, I found I got a lot more done when the workplace was separate. YMMV, but that was what I found.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 19 points 3 months ago
  1. It wasn't the Online Safety Act that blocked this. I am sure it along with its accompanying article is still available un-age restricted on the BBC, unblocked by the Online Safety Act. It was Twitter that blocked it.
  2. It isn't really a "negative" headline about Labour, it's just what the Labour politician said. I think it's more likely that Twitter decided to block it because it was overall a pro-Palestinian article, than that Labour had anything to do with it. As far as I'm aware of Twitter's management's stance on UK politics I would imagine they love shitting on Labour and censoring things about Palestine.
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago

What else could it possibly be?

I'll take any evidence, hopefully at some point it will be useful at the trial, but there's no possible way that denying food to a civilian population for months at a time can be anything except a strategy to starve them. This isn't like Ireland in the 1800s when they were taking the food away to do something else with it. It's there, and they're just leaving it to rot, undelivered.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago

He already did, that was my other post on the situation

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago

It doesn't completely work that way, just like for humans. Sometimes feeding pets less is just subjecting them to pretty severe discomfort and hunger, while their metabolism is deciding that food is scarce so they better hoard every calorie they can spare. I know it's significantly urgent to help them lose weight because of the health impacts, but IDK that it is super simple once you've decided to try to make it happen.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 10 points 3 months ago

He would be fine with Eastern Europe getting slowly taken. Nobody he cares about lives there, because he doesn't live there. If anything it would be nice because it would set a precedent that he could go wandering around other parts of the globe grabbing small nations that struck his fancy.

Once the wolves turned on him, because his usefulness to them is at its end, it would all of a sudden be very different, but by then the systems he'd destroyed would be unable to protect him. And, as you pointed out, he's unlikely to live that long anyway.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 33 points 3 months ago

Anyways, these edgelords would get laughed out of any real leftist communities once they started regurgitating agit prop.

Honestly, man, if they did the Hexbear type of behavior they might get punched. It's one thing that they advocate for genocide and excuse war crimes, that I think would get them laughed at or just removed yes. But the sheer level of obnoxiousness I think they would have trouble getting away with in person without some kind of physical reaction, at least someone getting in their face about it.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 24 points 3 months ago (17 children)

In the olden times, it was a big point of pride of American politics that a lot of people didn't want to kill the leaders. It was sort of assumed that in feudal style European politics, of course the common people kind of wanted to kill you, because you were threatening their safety and taking their stuff. In America, the way we did things was to earn the respect of the people you governed. The people actually wanted this person to be in charge. Why would I shoot that guy? That's who we picked, we like him.

Of course there are some caveats (slavery large among them). The reality never matched up to the ideal. But we're going back to where even the approximation of consent of the governed that we used to have, isn't assumed anymore. Fuckin bullshit

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 14 points 3 months ago

You seem to be assuming that the volume is immediately replaced by the external atmosphere, which I doubt is valid

No, I was assuming your volume decreases. I don't actually know that to be the case, but my assumption is that there isn't "extra" space inside a person, and so if you lose material from a part of your body that isn't encased in anything rigid your volume decreases slightly.

So maybe I did have my terminology wrong. When a hot air balloon deflates, it falls. The density went up, but that's not what's directly relevant. The weight went down, I guess, but the "number on the scale", weight minus buoyant force, went way way up, because it lost some lower-density volume that was making the whole thing float. The weight (in a strict physics sense) went down, sure. But the number on the scale (which I was incorrectly calling "weight") went up. Same thing for a farting person.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 1 points 3 months ago

Oh... yeah, that makes more sense than "decrypting" it to inspect it.

Anyway, I think I'll delete the article, I think you're right and it is unuseful.

view more: ‹ prev next ›