Lurker > Chunky

andel posted...

ultimately invading russia is a fools errand that has never worked for anyone and will never work.

Poland invaded the Soviet union successfully, and got them to sign for peace. This is actually part of the reason I mentioned Stalin, because he wasn't in power during the Polish-Soviet War, and they surrended much more quickly than Stalin would have. At least that is my understanding

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Yeah no, Stalin was an active detriment to the Soviet war effort and it was only after Zhukov went off on him and Stalin started butting out of military affairs more that the war turned decisively in their favor. Zhukov paid dearly for that post-war, of course.

But even so, the Nazis were also poorly-directed and switched objectives with the seasons, failing even to finish off so horribly stricken a city (and so vital a strategic objective) as Leningrad. Only a much more focused strategy and a much more thoroughly prepared force would have had any chance of success, but fascists are definitionally bad at all of those things. Nazi Germany never had much of shot at beating Soviet Russia, and it was mostly a product of Stalins (baseless) stubborn belief that Hitler would honor Molotov-Ribbentrop and the utter mess he made of the Red Army that the Nazis had any shot at all.

I agree. Stalin was a horrible military leader. But there's one important thing people are missing: his refusal to surrender even when they were getting crushed bad. I feel like any other person in that same leadership position would have surrendered after so many encirclements and defeats. To compare, France surrendered shortly after Paris was taken. Someone can correct me if I'm way off on this.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Did the Soviets only defeat Germany because of Stalin? Absolutely fucking not. Stalin is half the reason the Soviet situation was as dire as it was. He literally purged nearly every competent military officer in his country and was actively hostile towards lots of extremely critical military concepts for modern war fighting. If not for his intransigency throughout the 30s and most of 1940/41 then the Soviets would have fought a far more competent war (Or not been invaded in the first place, if we're to be honest.)

had stalin not been in office, whoever was might have surrendered (like most people did) because the odds of winning were unlikely. those who did surrender saw the writing on the wall, but stalin threw everything he possibly could, no matter how much it would cripple the country.

As a Florida resident, how do you deal with giant bugs that are the size of your hand? I would move out so quickly if I had to deal with things like that

A friend of mine who served 4 years in the military told me that everyone should be required to enlist because we owe that to the country we live in. He also said that if you don't think you owe your country anything, you should get out.

I was actually kinda caught off guard by that. I don't care about serving in the military, but if I ever did, it would be for personal gain, not because I love the country I live in or because I owe my country anything.

I'm talking about males only btw. Not trying to get into a whole thing here.

What do you think?

Companies need a face, so they usually hire people who are unqualified, but look good on camera and/or have good public speaking skills. Basically a CEO is a puppet that gets paid to be the official spokesperson of the company, but has no actual knowledge and doesn't need to do very much work, because all of his subordinates cover it. He just needs to show up to the meetings.

Compare a CEO and a burger flipper from McDonalds. CEO and burger flippers have different values in corporate america. why are CEOs valued? For one, all companies need a face. Doesn't matter who the face is, as long as they look good. Because of the news, being on TV, being a public figure. It's fake value because ceos don't really do anything. you could get a man off the street to be a CEO and he would do equally as good of a job, because he is carried by the company he is CEO of.

Burger flippers are definitely expendable, but only because corporate america wants it to be expendable. There can only be one CEO, but there can be many burger flippers. Seems like if you become a CEO, you're a lucky ass man who doesn't need to do very much work.

The germans were out-maneuvering them, even with far less men than the soviet union. But if you keep pouring men into the meat grinder, eventually you're going to overpower them, no matter how bad of a military it is.

Had anyone else been in office, I think the soviets would have surrendered, but Stalin didn't give a shit. He just kept replacing them. They didn't win because of superior military, they won strictly because of quantity.

Am I right on the mark on that one?

Another comment I hate seeing in topics like these. When people give advice like "don't be boring". To me, that's like saying "don't be depressed". That's not really definable. If a "boring" person knew how to stop being boring, they would have done it already. We need explanations.

I don't understand this topic

People are saying "women are picking the restaurant, and the nice guys are accommodating that". Um okay, what do you expect? If a girl wants to go to that fancy Italian restaurant across the street, I'm not going to tell "fuck you we're going to Luigi's pizzeria".

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being nice. The problem is being an incel.

If you think you need a relationship to solve your problems, that is like putting a band-aid on the actual issue. I see nothing wrong with working on yourself and being self-sufficient without the requirement of a relationship. A relationship is not a necessity.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

a pitbull actually as the power to maul other dogs

if a golden retriever were raised in the same conditions, it would most likely attack other dogs just like you said, but it's a fucking golden retriever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUYFK-KJng

My opinion: He's trying to protect his career and that's it. He might be off the hook legally, but ethically he's not. Everyone knows that he's guilty, including himself.

This is unfortunate to hear, it's pretty remarkable that she was in power since the '50s. Most people haven't even been alive since that long. With that said, I have a curious question.

If Elizabeth is the queen of England, do they not have elections or presidents in Britain? Who was Winston Churchill then? Do they have both a president and a queen? Does the Queen actually have any power?

MrResetti posted...

This happened

I'm flattered, because that means I'm a really good storyteller and this story must be really unbelievable. But I assure you, this actually did happen

I'm a security guard in an apartment building. A new couple moved into the apartments last month. Very nice people, but I noticed something about the husband. He's protective over his wife and I mean VERY protective.

Normally he's the one that takes the dog out for a walk. When he was out of town for 2 weeks, however, he asked us to closely watch his wife when she's outside walking the dog, especially at night, because he's afraid she will get mugged or approached by weird men. He even gave the overnight guard $100 in return. He never asks us to watch him when he walks the dog himself. None of the other husbands ask us to watch their wives when theyre walking their dogs (we have a bunch of tenants with dogs)

The other day, the wife was trying to park in the garage downstairs, but there was a cone blocking the garage door (not sure why, no one from security put that cone down). The wife called the husband, and the husband moved the cone. After the incident, the husband came down and asked us if we can move the cone next time, if this happens again. He admitted that he's afraid someone could mug her in that split time that she moves the cone out of the way.

I'll be fair. I do live in a dangerous city, crime rate is pretty high. So if he is truly worried about her security, that is perfectly understandable. But to me, it seems controlling. Try to imagine if this were you, would you be okay with your husband doing all of these things? He just seems protective on a whole new level.

SaltRiverFloat posted...

TC getting this worked up about it tells me he's not a straight shooter and tells it like it isn't.

I guess you could say I'm giving them a taste of their own medicine

BiggLaw posted...

They are irritating, but I think the "just saying" types are worse.

The aforementioned may say some jerk shit, but the latter don't even want to be held accountable for the jerk shit they say. They'll say the most ignorant nonsense and be like "just saying," as if it erases the status effects.

Actually yeah. I didn't think of that when I originally created the topic, but I 100% agree. I hear that shit all the time.

SrRd_RacinG posted...

Agreed. It's always a red flag. It takes skillfulness, patience and empathy to effectively communicate a truth. It's important to always speak the truth as long as it's skillful.

Brutal or unskillful truth is always a bad idea. It's a terrible personality trait.

In conclusion, people like the truth, they just don't like it brutally. So be skillful. That doesn't mean "sugarcoat", it means skillful.

i agree. if someone doesn't want to sugarcoat it, then they don't have to. but why announce it?

Depends on the situation. Usually I have a 2 strike policy. For example, one time I asked out a co-worker and she said "I gotta check my schedule". I said OK. A few weeks later, I asked again, she defaulted to the same response. At that point, I assumed she wasn't interested and I took that as a rejection, which is fine. My 2 strike policy also applies to cancellations. If a woman cancels twice in a row, I won't reschedule after that. Obviously there's situations where I stop after the 1st strike, if the woman clearly isn't interested.

it means figuratively waking up

like "joe rogan was woke af", because he was the only one to really wake up and realize something

Not let a conversation die on the first date. If you run out of things to say, or don't know what to say in general, you're fucked. If you keep the conversation going, even something as simple as asking her questions, you're going to be fine. Even if there is just a little bit of dead air, you're fucked. One little awkward moment and you're done.

How come Steve isn't banned. Literally some dude off the street who only played elite smash beat MKLeo and 5 other great players, you've got to be kidding me. No one likes fighting him.

Slaya4 posted...

Somebody really hurt TCs feelings.

you're doing it correctly

you're not asking for permission to tell me the truth, you're just telling the truth

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Nah Ive met a lot of people like this

It's an excuse to just never use any tact but think it's fine because you're being honest

I also find they crumble if you give the harsh truth or whatever back to them

this 100%. they're just trying to get a free pass to be an asshole. and when they do get "permission" to be an asshole, they won't feel bad if the recipient doesn't take kindly to it. "i told you ahead of time, bro".

I'm talking about people who claim they are brutally honest. They're always the worst type of people.

Whenever they say "I tell it like it is" or "I'm a straight shooter", it's always because they want to say something negative, not positive. It's an Asshole Pass.

The other thing. They're not telling the truth. They're telling what they THINK is the truth. So they're cocky, because they believe their information is 100% true.

They act tough and like they don't give a fuck, but they're actually more afraid than anyone else. They need permission to be honest? Why do you think they're asking for permission to be honest? Because they're afraid. If they weren't afraid, they would be honest without a disclaimer at the beginning.

The worst part is they never practice what they preach all the time. Are they honest to their boss? Or their family? Or people above them in any way? No.

Whenever I hear someone make any of those lines, or "I'm not gonna sugar coat it" or anything like that, I tell them to stop talking, I don't want to hear it.

There was this one girl who we were going to fire because she sucked at her job, and kept bringing down our numbers (call center). Finally we decided we were going to fire her on a specific date. However, the last week she was there, she was improving and seemed to be in better spirit. But the decision to fire her was already officially made, so it had to be done.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

With the air fryer getting hot, I think it will yeah.

MarcoRubio posted...

That seems like a poor experiment. How was the handle originally connected?

With 1 screw. But the port that the screw goes in broke completely. No way to utilize that screw anymore.

I own this air fryer, and I broke the handle off it. It's the handle that is attached to the tray where the food goes into. The actual tray doesn't have any electrical components.

I feel weird throwing away an air fryer just because the handle broke, but it's super inconvenient to use it with a broken handle.

Would this be a fire hazard? Any alternatives?

HovaRex posted...

If you're job tries to fire you for showing them the courtesy of informing them of your new offer you need a new job.

They should see you as more loyal since you easily could just take the offer and ghost them

Informing them of your new offer would be "I'm putting in my 2 weeks, I got a new job". If they try to save them, don't accept and go forward with your 2 week notice.

I agree it sucks, but 95% of jobs in corporate america are like that. Getting a new job will usually not solve the problem. Ask anyone.

If you get another job, and try to negotiate higher pay with your current employer, they might give you a raise, but now they know you have no loyalty to them. Then they will try to fire you.

Common Arguments:

"My job didn't do this to me": That is 1 in a million jobs. Try that anywhere else, and you may not be as lucky.

"I have more pull than you do": I've worked high-up jobs and entry-level jobs. This applies to both situations, not just for the lower-end jobs.

StarbucksWorker posted...

what i cant stand is the knockoff vigilante ones that are all over social media who run around as a group recording with their phones and uploading them to youtube

their tactics are not too different from to catch a predator, only difference is the youtube ones can't have the guy arrested.

Prestoff posted...

It was a guilty pleasure of mines, but I stopped because I know shows like these do more harm than good in trying to help pedophiles/predators with their actual problems.

what should they have done differrently?

NOM posted...

Would not care in the least. Karma and seniority mean nothing here lol.

Trust me, you would be upset to lose your LUE access.

Mizznox posted...

I googled "apples in the fridge" and literally every single first page result is about how they last much longer in the fridge and keep best at ~35 degrees F.

You're right. Google is making me out to be a liar now lol.

apolloooo posted...

Dont freeze fruits. The water inside the cells expand as it froze, and break the cell wall, when it melts the water leak out of the plant cell and create a gooey and mushy fruit

Good to know. Seems like you're right about that one. Dunno how companies do it with the frozen bags in the frozen isle though.

Tyranthraxus posted...

you can freeze apples you just have to thaw them before you eat them.

like what do you think the apples at your grocery store have been through? there's not some magic apple trees producing fruit all year round. They are literally frozen and thawed before being put out for sale.

that said, you're a little mixed up on your terminology. something can be both processed and natural at the same time. processed has to do with the things you do to the food before you eat it.

ground beef is "processed" but for all intents and purposes it has roughly the same shelf life as a steak, even an "organic" steak.

Of course you have to thaw them. What do you think I did? Eat a frozen-solid apple? With that said, you're right that apples are not magic. You're explaining why fruit have a bad shelf life, but it doesn't change the fact that fruit...has a bad shelf life.

By "processed" I meant Hot Pockets, TV dinners, anything premade.

Freddie_Mercury posted...

...

put them in the fridge?

my strawberries do go in the fridge. they still last 1 week

i used to put apples in the fridge, but according to google, they shouldn't go in the fridge.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Why don't you just buy what you need instead of buying in bulk?

What kind of savage can't manage to eat a basket of strawberries?

because that isnt the correct shopping etiquette. ask anyone, who buys in advance so they don't have to keep going to the store over and over again? why are places like BJ's so popular? buyung reactively rather than proactively leads to problems.

MabusIncarnate posted...

Okay, i'm just gonna toss you some tips here.

You can refrigerate apples and extend the life. Putting them in a window will accelerate decay.

I'd assume if you freeze apples, don't cut them up first, but I have no idea.

Bananas, wait until there is less than an inch of green on the stem.

Strawberries, intend on eating within the first 3 or 4 days. They don't have longevity, regardless if you put them in the fridge.

Buying individual fruit is an option, but not economical. You'd need to figure out how much you are tossing opposed to how much you'd be spending buying them individual.

Eat more pears.

thanks for the info. with that said, apples in the fridge? google told me otherwise. not saying you're wrong, but just explaining why i was previously mislead. if you go to any produce section, apples usually are not refrigerated so i figured it made sense that they don't go in the fridge. but again, not saying you're wrong, just explaining my original thought process.

the banana advice is nice, and i'll try that. it's too bad for the strawberries, i guess you have to either eat them fast or buy them for your family.