• Computer scientists explaining they’re not necessarily good with IT
• Electrical engineers explaining they can’t necessarily do electrical work

Any others?

So vindicated.

See the Wiktionary entry.

Get that first week of Macroecon 101 shit out of here before I go into outrage withdrawal.

resist corporate bullshit by spitting in their face.

“Resist corporate bullshit by eschewing the free, non-corporate option – which, because it’s open, gets better the more people use it – in favor of continuing to use the exact same corporate product but with an abstruse, hacky workaround that 0.001% of the userbase will use and will probably be plugged by this time next week. That’ll show those corpo fucks who’s boss. ✊Ⓐ”

There’s only so much incessant bitching I can hear about dark patterns, intrusive automatic updates, shoehorned-in and useless AI, zero user choice, planned obsolesence, and being blindsided by enshittification before I say “just try using the free thing that doesn’t have those problems”.

“I’ve tried nothing, and I’m all out of ideas.” If you have to for work or something, though, I totally get it and encourage the bitching.

monkei

I think they also think they’re vegan while holding that position. Hey OP, the animal kingdom doesn’t stop at the doorstep of genus Homo, you fucking nutjob.

I guess they think they’re a Homestuck troll.

AROOOO, BROTHER. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE IS THE CONNECTIONS WE MAKE WITH OTHERS. CHERISH THOSE AROUND YOU LIKE YOU CHERISH THAT MF’IN HOG.

Are you really even celebrating Halloween if you don’t have a 1:1 animatronic of The One Reborn in your front yard?

Ignoring for a second all the controversy around the term “two-spirit”, even if we say that two-spirit is the extremely Western concept – detached from indigenous culture – of a male and female in the same body (or even just generically two genders in one body), that still doesn’t apply, because all of the entities are male. In set theory, if you keep adding the same element to the set over and over, the set doesn’t change.

Moreover, even if there were the kind of history you’re talking about, I’m not sure why dissociative identity disorder is being brought up here, because that categorically isn’t how God as multiple entities works within the fiction of the Bible. We see God and Jesus talking to each other back and forth multiple times, and that’s not how DID works. DID – a controversial diagnosis – isn’t a sitcom where two flatmates hang out inside your mind and banter. You’re dissociating so badly that you lose continuity, but God is clearly able to work as all three just fine at the same time.

often described as a mother [in the Bible]

Definitely going to need a source for that one. Isaiah 66:13 is a one-off similie to mothers comforting their children, but I don’t think you’d then turn around, read Psalm 42:1, and think that David is an otherkin and that God identifies as waterself.

• The Father, God, is referred to as “He” consistently thousands of times in modern translations of the Bible, and he’s either literally or metaphorically “the Father”.
• The Son, Jesus, is unambiguously male in his earthly incarnation, and he’s either literally or metaphorically “the Son”.
• The Holy Spirit is referred to as masculine in English translations of the Bible, while Greek translations treat the Spirit more like an object-force-of-nature type whose pronouns change at any time to coincide with the type of object describing it (e.g. “comforter” is masculine, but “spirit” is neutral) and Hebrew just sticks with the feminine pronoun of the noun “spirit”.

If you read a modern English version of the Bible, you have three entities in one which all are all consistently identified as masculine. Trying to treat God as non-binary with regard to modern English translations is more mental gymnastics than arguing why Kris Dreemurr isn’t non-binary.

Given this is all fiction, it’s safe to say that death of the author is in play here, namely that 99.99% of the modern Christians who’d get offended at non-binary people existing would also not think of God as non-binary even after pondering on it, because their culture and holy book categorically treat God as masculine.

It’s technically more money upfront, but you’re not just buying the printer itself: you’re also buying the starter ink/toner cartridges that come with the device. The starter toner gives you vastly more pages than the starter ink, and it basically never goes bad. According to Brother, the size of a starter toner cartridge is 1000 A4 pages. According to HP, their Deskjet and Envy starter cartridges print about 150 and 250 pages, respectively.

So that higher upfront cost doesn’t just go into a better, more efficient machine; it also goes into quadruple the starting pages or more. There are people who could seriously never print more than 1000 pages, whereas the starter for a Deskjet is so small that you practically ought to buy a spare cartridge alongside the printer for when it near-immediately runs out.

Basically, if I’m not flat-ass broke, I’m paying another $63 upfront for an XL ink cartridge from HP for one of these printers. And what’s the page yield? 430. I’m still not even near the starter toner cartridge page capacity after spending an extra $63 on ink. To me, the upfront cost of an inkjet printer is pragmatically higher unless I’m so boots-theory-of-economics broke that all I can afford is the printer unit and only print a few pages a month tops.

No, pomegranates are actually very healthy. They’re rich in polyphenols (a class of antioxidant), fiber, and a variety of micronutrients, and they have a low glycemic index.

“And just beat the devil out of it.”

Here’s what a 7.62x63 (“.30-06”) does to level III armor (think basic rifle protection, the kind that would actually stop the round that hit Kirk). This particular one is a large, very conspicuous plate of steel 8.5 mm thick and weighing 4 kg. You don’t just slot this in under your shirt and look totally normal. If Kirk had done the lowest-profile possible thing and duct-taped the plate around his torso, you would still notice it under his clothing.

And it would have to have been hard armor, i.e. a rigid plate. Soft armor 1) wouldn’t have stopped that round (that’d be more like a step down to level IIIA on the high end) and 2) would’ve embedded the round rather than ricocheting it.

Firstly, the burden of proof says it’s their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We’ve really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.

• There’s zero evidence Kirk was wearing body armor whatsoever.
• I don’t think we’ve ever seen evidence of Kirk wearing body armor to debates elsewhere.
• A bullet would’ve left at minimum a noticeable tear in Kirk’s clothing.
• Neither journalists nor investigators mention anything about this even though there’s zero compelling reason for them not to and, for journalists, incentives to do so.
• The round was 7.62x63 mm fired from a bolt-action rifle.
• If that round strikes body armor, in order for it to stop (let alone ricochet rather than embed), the armor needs to be so thick that you cannot hide it under civilian clothing like Kirk’s. The armor would’ve been readily visible to everybody in attendance. Light armor Kirk realistically could’ve been wearing would be a non-factor.
• Even if this magically happened, the improbably fucked-up physics required for a bullet to bounce from the torso into the cartoid artery seem vanishingly unlikely at best and implausible at worst.

While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.