Lurker > Serious Cat

I could see it if it's seasoned and not dry dry.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I'm not even seeing other allegations that they cut this segment in "lots of places", let alone evidence and it airs on HBO, a premium cable channel, so I don't know who would be making the call to cut it. Are you misinterpreting the comments on that specific video about clips from Last Week Tonight's official YouTube channel being unavailable outside the US?

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I don't loan any amount that would bother me if I didn't get it back.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I think we went from late August to late May.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Do Native Americans even get what can properly be called reparations above what the US government distributes as trustee over tribal lands and resources?

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

LeperMessiahXX posted...

There already are. I'm not even kidding, there are already tons of people opposing a vaccine that doesn't even exist yet.

This.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

Internet Archives has a DMCA exception. This should be an open and shut case.

For software archival specifically, not copying and distributing books.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

Saying it's not Twitter or social media's job to interfere with politics/news/information etc?

Specifically political discussion. Facebook doesn't fact check political ads or statements made by politicians as a matter of policy. That doesn't extend to outright false information posted by other entities.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Paul McCartney
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
Tony Blair
Rupert Murdock
Michael Jackson
The Rolling Stones
U2
LeBron James
Steven Hawking

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

marthsheretoo posted...

If you want to talk about an author's right to negotiate said rights, that's a different conversation (and I disagree with you).

So a publisher has the right to reproduce any and all existing works with no obligation to reimburse the author? That's what you're arguing. Creating copies might be a negligible process, but the perceived value added to the final product beyond the physical cost of paper and binding comes from the contributions of the author.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

marthsheretoo posted...

To;Dr: The trad publishing model is outdated but functional and will be for a while; there are plenty of other business models that allow for profitable publication that could fill the gap, and will only increase in popularity.

I'm not arguing for the traditional publishing model. I'm arguing for a creator having the right to negotiate reproduction and distribution rights for their work regardless of the model being used.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

marthsheretoo posted...

The creation of a unique story that people are willing to pay for to get the opportunity to read.

OK, so you've got a "unique story." Where's the incentive for someone to pay for it initially if there are no limits to reproduction or distribution? For that matter, what are they even paying for if not right to publish and distribute?

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

marthsheretoo posted...

You deserve the ability to barter for the creation of a book (labor). Once it's written, creating copies is a negligible process that anyone can do (not labor).

Forced artificial scarcity is a cancer.

What exactly are you supposed to be bartering for if there's no exclusivity to reproduction and distribution?

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

p-m posted...

No you don't. No one deserves money for their creative work. People can give you money if they think it's good enough, that's it.

I've spent so much of my life working on music and releasing albums online, I've had barely any sales and I don't think I deserve to be paid for it. But it's certainly nice when someone does pay.

"No one deserves money for their physical labor. Employers can give you money if they think it's good enough, that's it."


---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

lolife67 posted...

But Antifa was declared one, though.

That's what the entire article I linked to was about.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/31/opinions/trump-antifa-domestic-terrorist-bergen/index.html

Because it would likely be unconstitutional to designate a domestic ideological movement as a terrorist organization.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

MabusIncarnate posted...

Didn't Garfield, maybe Calvin and Hobbes, have an ongoing joke that Wyoming didn't exist? They said like "have you ever been there? Do you know anyone who has been there? Do you know anyone that lived there? Wyoming is a myth"

My answer to all of those is no.

My answers to all of those is yes.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I didn't think so, but a dream I had seemed to suggest otherwise.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

superXY posted...

How stupid do they think we are?

---

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Ours is closing too, meaning our mall will be left with an agriculture supply/hardware/outdoor sporting goods store as the only anchor.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Not if I trim around my mouth.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

21WIVES_CHILL posted...

No you dont, it's all waived and all on the landlord

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle-city-council-extends-eviction-protection-legislation-six-more-months/

So I'm not sure why people are worried about rent

Not everyone lives in Seattle.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Yeah. I paid rent in cash because I don't have checks.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I'm one of those who gets up 45 minutes before I have to be there, but it's only a 5 minute drive there.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Bad_Mojo posted...

I didn't read the article, but how do the "continue" to battle it? It has to be 100 years, I think, so they don't have to battle it yet. Or are they just trying to get ahead of it?

Copyright eventually outright expire under current law but trademark laws allow for protection as long as the trademark is in continual use.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

tremain07 posted...

Every time someone says something like this it's basically them saying they don't care about the present as long as it's not a one for one of the past

In this case, they're saying it was more divided back then and didn't result in a civil war.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Christian conservatives have bad taste in art?

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

They're supposed to set the auction up with a reserve price letting you know whether or not the reserve is met. They're not supposed to just cancel the auction.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Its called a reserve, but I have no fucking idea why its a thing.

Say there are 30 other listings for a similar item that I'm not willing to sell for less than $400 but bidding can get up to $600. If I start my auction at $400, people are just going to start bidding on the auctions at a lower price and my item won't get any bids despite the fact that I'm willing to sell at less than the prevailing price. By setting a reserve price, it allows a bidding process on that type of item.

It would also guarantee me that I would make at least reserve price on an item instead of next highest bid plus an increment, assuming high bid met reserve price and next highest bid didn't.

But again I emphasize that reserve price needs to be set at the beginning, not just a situation where the buyer just decides not to sell.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Transformers also had the 80's nostalgia going for it. That said, Bad Boys II was the 10th top grossing film in a strong year for film in general, so it did ok for itself.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I don't follow soccer much, but caught a random match he was in and damn was it beautiful.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

It's more of a defensive position and what the extra handle is there for in the first place.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

https://youtu.be/3Xz7WfVYxok

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I knew a Michael who spelled his name "Micheal" in my yearbook but spells it "Michael" on Facebook. To this day I don't know if he didn't know how his own name was spelled or if he changed it.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Mike_Stanton posted...

So what do we do when we actually want to mean something literally? Do we say "literally literally" to distinguish between "figuratively literally"?

The same thing we do when we use any other hyperbole: determine it through context.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Too many to settle on one. I've seen him 8 times since 2002.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I did a M-Th, Saturday or M-W, Saturday, Sunday workweek for a couple of years. The schedule itself wasn't bad and I vastly preferred the work.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I don't know why people have problems with "literally" in this case but are ok with "I died laughing," which is equally incorrect.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

It's been a few months even though it's literally kitty corner from my block. Last I checked, only the drive up was open and I feel weird driving half a block.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I might remember when my aunt died when I was 2 1/2, or something similar.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

then wouldnt it be 1/3 * 1/2?

No, because in that case you'd be picking the door you keep every time. You'd multiply by 1/2 if you were choosing your door at random. (1/3 chance of winning times the 1/2 chance of selecting that door.)

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

The problem I have with this is that we're only considering birth order significant when there is a boy involved. Yes the possibilities are GB, BG, GG, but we're not considering that the "at least one" girl could be the older or younger of the sisters. The real equal possibilities are that the known sister could be the older sister of a brother, the younger sister of a brother, the older sister of a sister, or the younger sister of a sister. Yes there's a 1/3 chance of both being sisters among all possible sibling pairs, but once we know that one is a sister, the chance of the other sibling being a sister should be 50/50.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I spoke too soon. Came in to work to find out a swing shift coworker tested positive on Friday.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

I don't. There have been less than 100 cases in my county and less than 10 in the county where I grew up.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

https://youtu.be/5LWfXhggC70

Here's an example that goes the other way.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Not wow.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

jpenny2 posted...

Someone needs to explain to him that you can use adjectives without putting very in front of them.

Probably this, but it's a sentence fragment anyway. "There is much very good information available." is a bit clunky but probably OK. "A lot of very good information" sounds better but is no more correct than "much" as far as I know.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Blue_Dream87 posted...

This is something I can understand from a statistical point, but in practice it still doesn't click for me. Doesn't help there are so many different examples that change the context.

In practice, to me, there are two choices: 1/3, then 1/2. However the 1/3 choice is completely arbitrary, as that third door is simply thrown out. There may be two Goats (1 and A), but no matter what your first choice will not pick Goat A. You either picked Goat 1 or the Car. So when you have that second choice...has anything changed? Now it's Goat 1 or the Car, again. The odds never really changed in practice.

It's simply not intuitive for me, idk. That first choice doesn't seem real.

It hinges on what you know before you make your choice. You know that you only have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the car on your first pick, in which case there are goats behind each of the unselected doors. You know that you have a 2 in 3 chance of picking a goat on your first pick, in which case there are one of the goats and the car behind the remaining doors.

Notice that no matter what you pick, the host will be able to show you one of the goats. If you pick the car (which you will do 1/3 of the time), he will show you a goat. If you pick one of the goats (which you will do 2/3 of the time), he will show you the other goat. The host showing an arbitrary goat after the choice doesn't change the fact that you still only have a 1/3 chance of picking the car on your first choice and are always better off switching.

So yes, you have a 50-50 shot by picking either of the two remaining doors at random, but you also have a 50-50 shot at picking the winner of a boxing match at random with no information. The key is that knowing the initial probability gives us weighted odds. Showing the goat behind one of the doors is the equivalent of showing us that the underdog in a boxing match showed up, but doesn't change the odds that he wins.

The seeming paradox comes because you'll win 66.6% of the time switching, 33.3% of the time staying with your initial selection, and 50% of the time making a truly random selection. In cases like this, 50/50 isn't the same as not mattering because not all randomness is equally random.


---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Sprite

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

Maybe I can break some brains if I point out that the guy who says it's 50/50 at the second selection is technically right, and here's why. There's a 2/3 chance that switching in general will win you the car. There's a 1/3 chance that keeping your door in general will win the car. Choosing randomly, that means we'll switch half the time and keep half the time. That means that, by chance, we'll still switch doors and win 1/3 of the time and that, by chance, we'll keep doors and win 1/6 of the time, meaning we'd still expect to win 50% of the time choosing randomly.

Note, however, that a 50% probability of you winning isn't the same as saying it doesn't matter which one you pick. If I have a recording of this year's Super Bowl and play it out, the Chiefs will win 100% of the time. If I say the Chiefs will win, I'll be right 100% of the time. If I say the 49ers will win, I'll be wrong 100% of the time. If I flip a coin, I'll still be right half the time but it's not the same as saying it doesn't matter which one I pick.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread

8 1/2. I like if not love all the other Felinni movies I've seen but can't get into 8 1/2.

---

I are Serious Cat
This is serious thread