Lurker > adjl

Revelation34 posted...

Apparently cancel culture now means getting kicked out of a home.

It can, yes. Ultimately, the concept boils down to "I don't like something about you, so I'm not going to support you anymore." In a commercial setting, that amounts to not buying whatever goods/services they are involved in creating, with "cancelling" happening when that happens on a large enough scale that their opinions/actions become a financial liability (resulting in no more job if their parent company decides they're too much of a liability), but the concept can be applied just as easily to a personal scale, in which case kicking a child out is probably the ultimate example of it.

Unbridled9 posted...

I get why they'd want the female nudity not shown to minors, but profanity and things like hanging/killing children (especially in cartoon form)? They've seen/heard worse.

"These kids have all seen plenty of murders, but we must avoid showing them tits at all costs!"

America is so goddamn backwards. Never mind that you can almost certainly count on one hand the number of kids in any given 8th grade class that haven't watched at least some porn, and statistically, most of those are likely to be ones that see female nudity every time they change their clothes.

ssj4supervegeta posted...

the misinformation saying it does is why people are not wearing masks and people saying that you dont have to wear a mask if you have the vaccine.

That was particularly exacerbated by a CDC announcement that fully vaccinated people didn't need masks, but that was back in May. At that point, the science did support eschewing masks post-vaccination, since the vaccines were effective enough to reduce the risk of transmitting Alpha or Beta to acceptable levels.

Of course, at that point, ~30% of the US was fully vaccinated, but most people gave up on masks with no efforts to verify that, which is exactly what everyone with half a brain expected to happen after the announcement was made. Cases surged accordingly, and then Delta happened and the vaccines were less effective against it, but getting people to go back to masks was hard. And now Omicron's here and the vaccines are even less effective, but people just don't want to listen to that.

That, however, is not because people are overestimating the vaccine's effectiveness. Quite the opposite: Most of the people refusing to wear masks or accept that the vaccine's effectiveness has waned (both because of how much time has passed since the doses and because of changing epidemiology) are also the ones downplaying the vaccine's effectiveness (more than is appropriate) because they just don't want to have to do anything. These are the same people who glomped onto the CDC's announcement as an excuse to stop wearing masks, despite categorically decrying the CDC's scientific process and conclusions at virtually every turn before then. Big surprise, they criticized them not on any scientific basis, but because they said something they didn't like.

ssj4supervegeta posted...

if the vaccine was full immunization then yeah i can see why it would be mandatory in some fields, but because it's not that it should not be mandatory.

No vaccine is ever "full immunization." Every single one is a matter of risk reduction, like most workplace safety regulations. Being imperfect protection does not mean a safety regulation should not be mandatory. That's especially true when it's such an easy regulation to adhere to.

It's not split-screen, but Snipperclips on the Switch is a delightful little co-op puzzle game that may or may not cause a divorce.

MartianManchild posted...

Sure you can cherry pick a few instances of Republicans banning things, but liberals are notorious for their cancel culture and wanting anything that remotely offends them removed/banned.

Wanting offensive stuff censored pretty universally crosses party lines. You just notice it more when it's the left that's complaining because those complaints tend to amount to "we need to stop giving this objectively harmful behaviour a free pass," while you've generally enjoyed giving it a free pass for as long as you've been aware of it.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Truck convoys have happened in Canada in the past. They've been mired in logistical issues, because the organizers are typically idiots.

Their message is mixed, it's not clear whether this is about road conditions or vaccine mandates. The 13%-17% of unvaccinated Canadian truckers are contributing to supply chain issues as they are required to quarantine for 2 weeks after crossing the border. Know how we can improve supply chain issues? Get vaccinated, don't go on a fucking cross-country parade.

Oh, and looks like the main organizer is a 'Western Separatist' aka completely detached from reality. No documents to present in Ottawa, no documents showing how money will be allocated. Complete fucking joke. I keep seeing people exaggerating the #s as "hundreds of thousands". It's a few hundred at present. What will they accomplish? Nothing. What are their goals? Unclear.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/3/7/AAUdByAAC2k9.jpg

I like that her name is literally Lich.

keyblader1985 posted...

I am interested, but I haven't even played the first game yet.

Pretty much this. I intend to pick the first one up on PC at some point, given that I lack a PS4, but I'm not even sure if I can run it (my processor is named as the minimum required, and my 280X is a bit weaker than the 290 they call the minimum), and I've got enough else on my plate that I'm fine to wait until it's a bit cheaper. And then the sequel likely won't come to PC for another few years, so I'm in no rush.

Full Throttle posted...

I will not waste my years of training and talent on that

So instead, she'll waste her years of training and talent doing nothing for $0 an hour. Smart.

Full Throttle posted...

She said "I refuse to be complicit in the use of a FETAL TISSUE, which was used in research and development for both pfizer and moderna vaccines and in the development of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.

Pretty much every drug on the market has used that fetal stem cell line at some point in its development. It's kind of everywhere.

Full Throttle posted...

I will not support the death of babies that were used to create these vaccines"..

Baby*. Singular. Stem cells harvested from one aborted fetus in the 50's have been cultured into an immortal cell line that has been used worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry (among others) ever since.

While I agree that the notion of using aborted fetuses is ethically questionable and would not condone large-scale harvesting practices for science, I find it hard to object to this one. The cells from this single fetus - who was aborted because the pregnancy was unwanted and not for science - have been used to save countless lives over the past 70 years. I don't know where exactly I'd draw the line for how many lives must be saved in order to justify taking one innocent one, but it's definitely well below the number that have been saved by this cell line.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious.

Sure, but that's not what I said. The analogy - and the real-world situation - is a matter of people passively making it more difficult to arrest the criminals in question purely incidentally. There's no reason to believe there might be any grander plan in place and therefore no reason to consider them accomplices.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested.

You explicitly identified them as accomplices. Accomplices to crimes should generally be arrested along with the primary culprits.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest.

They're dumb. They're also an extremely tiny minority, so I'm generally pretty comfortable discounting them in speaking about the general situation.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Were they also antagonistic toward it.

They were not antagonistic toward the cause, since they weren't trying to hurt it, but I would say that they generally didn't do it any favours, because they - however inadvertently - did characterize it as a violent movement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested.

They should be arrested because they committed crimes. They haven't been arrested, not because they shouldn't be arrested, but because it hasn't been feasible to do so. It's a simple practical issue, not any sort of magical immunity they get just for being part of a protest.

My position is - and has always been - that being associated with a protest does not in any way influence whether or not somebody should be arrested for committing a crime. It often influences whether or not they do get arrested, because of the practical considerations, but that indicates nothing about whether or not they should. That is what you saw in the 2020 BLM protests (and some other larger-scale examples), and that is not in any way precedent for letting people get away with crimes just because they're protesting.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Being cheap isn't a good reason to buy something you don't need.

It's a good reason to wait until that thing you don't need is cheaper, though. There are varying degrees of frugality, after all, associated with varying amounts of disposable income.

papercup posted...

Wasn't he a stereotypical dwarf in The Avengers???

Enough so that my immediate thought was "of course they cast Peter Dinklage as the dwarf," but the dwarf in question was actually giant, so... *shrug*

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They're taking part in the same protest.

And protesting is not arson, nor is it illegal in any way (at least, not in countries that value any degree of democratic freedom). Participating in the protest is wholly irrelevant to committing the crime of arson.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

According to you they make it harder to identify those that you said are guilty.

If somebody with dark hair and wearing a grey shirt commits a robbery, would you count every dark-haired person wearing a grey shirt in the vicinity to be an accomplice? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Now go back and rethink what you just said.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And if not for that the presumed guilty might not have been so bold as to start the fire in the first place.

You can't consider people guilty of arson for merely existing around enough other people that the arsonist feels he can hide near them. That would be ridiculous.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wrong, it was society which decided that.

Outside of election time, society doesn't decide who gets arrested.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

News reports focused on the ratio of peacefulness of the protests. It was an overwhelming aspect to their coverage of the not peaceful parts of the protests.

News reports focused on the peacefulness of the majority because the violent minority was being used to discredit the movement as a whole. A great many people (mostly the sort of people that don't think it's a problem that police keep killing unarmed black people) were insistent on characterizing the protests as nothing more than a bunch of violent riots, under the pretense of wanting to lock up every single protester, but the reality was that the vast majority of protests were not violent at all (meaning there was nobody to arrest at all), and even for those that did turn violent, it was generally only a small handful of people (some of whom were just opportunistic troublemakers, some of whom were false flag instigators trying to discredit the movement (including a number of police), and some of whom were a part of the movement but let their tempers get the better of them) that were at all violent. That created a need to set the record straight.

The focus was on the non-violent majority purely because there was so much antagonistic focus placed on the violent minority that sought to generalize that to everyone involved, including calls to arrest all of them. Saying "you don't need to arrest BLM protesters just because this tiny minority was violent" is not giving a free pass to violent criminals just because they were part of a protest, it's telling people to stop suggesting that innocent protesters should be arrested.

To be clear: Criminals should be arrested. This is true whether they're part of a protest or not. I don't know how you misinterpreted 2020 so completely as to not only think anyone was suggesting otherwise, but also to consider such imaginary suggestions to be legal precedent for dealing with every future criminal act committed during a protest, but you're very, very wrong.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And the remaining people?

The people that are not peaceful should be arrested. That they have not been doesn't indicate that anyone thinks they shouldn't be, it indicates that it's exceedingly difficult to do so and ultimately not worth the effort it would take (if it's even possible).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, the 6 wouldn't get arrested because they're part of a protest.

Where are you getting this nonsense? Is some nebulous concept of protest-related immunity to prosecution really the only way you can rationalize people getting away with crimes during a protest? You can't look at the basic details of the example that I just outlined and realize that there are practical limitations on what police are capable of?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I know you have difficulty with abstract thinking

I have no difficulty with abstract thinking. You're just making up nonsense that has nothing to do with reality for no apparent reason.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you might think that the people who set the fire are guilty of arson,

They are, but that guilt is only going to amount to anything if you can catch them. That's the practical reality of law enforcement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

the other protesters are accomplices

They are not accomplices. They did not participate in the act of arson in any way, they did not deliberately act to cover it up or protect the perpetrator, they were just in the same area at the same time as the crime was committed. Some local governments did try to push laws amounting to "you can be arrested for being in the same area as somebody that commits a violent act during a protest even if you don't do anything yourself," but I don't believe any of those ever really took off because they're very obviously an assault on first amendment rights (in addition to being blatant nonsense that would never hold up in any higher court).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

and the news reporter who downplayed the seriousness of the crime are complicit in it and inciting people to commit more.

That's going to depend on the exact things they're saying, but generally speaking, that's not true either. Nobody is obligated to comment on a burning building just because it's there. Not commenting on it is not a deliberate effort to aid the arsonist, nor does it encourage further arson.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Since as a whole it's still mostly peaceful it qualifies as being part of a protest and the arson isn't that much of an issue.

It's more that the protest is more interesting than the fire, so that's what the reporter reports on. Being part of a protest does not make it legal. Having such a crime happen in a large, chaotic crowd, however, makes it difficult to do anything about it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't know where you got those note or what they're for but they don't pertain to anything I've said.

You're alleging that any violent crimes that are part of protests are somehow forgiven for the sake of the protest, which would be a legal decision made by governments . The protests in question sought to hold police accountable for overstepping their bounds in the process of enforcing the law, with the added refrain of reducing the scale of police departments and their budgets for the sake of reallocating that support to initiatives that reduce crime without the need to involve law enforcement (such as mental health and social work supports).

The former represents a conspiracy by the government to favour protests above all else. The latter describes protests that seek to erode the power the government holds by limiting their enforcement resources. Therefore, you are suggesting that the government is conspiring to enable and encourage protests against its own ability to hold power. That's not a very sensible suggestion, I'm afraid.

Jen0125 posted...

I don't believe doctors should be forced to tolerate a hostile or poor work environment just for the sake of the employer.

They shouldn't be forced for the sake of the employer. They should be forced for the sake of the patients. The employer can go fellate a cactus, for all I care.

Legally speaking (since, as we all know, the only way corporations like this behave morally is if it's illegal not to), I think the best course of action would be something like requiring two weeks' notice from the departing staff (as opposed to it just being courteous to provide that and not a legal requirement), then after those two weeks, requiring the old hospital to pay them their new salary for up to two additional weeks or until the positions are staffed (whichever happens first). If that month isn't enough to find replacements, that's their failure and the new employer has done their due diligence to protect the old hospital's patients, especially where they've had the opportunity to reduce intake to accommodate their staffing shortage. Toss in some extra legal recourse for any hostile treatment the doctors face in that transitional period, and you'd be more or less good.

Of course, all of this is only a problem because for-profit medicine is inherently a broken concept, but we'll assume we aren't going to get past that.

Mad_Max posted...

You don't commit acts of violence and spew racist hatespeech and then turn around and say "this isn't who I am" because you got f***ing caught and are seeing the consequences of your behavior. No, motherf***er. That's exactly who you are.

This. All that means is that you're pretending not to be that person on a day-to-day basis. People that aren't violent racists don't assault people and spew racist hate speech. Under any circumstances.

Jen0125 posted...

When is it ever the case that a new employer needs to ensure the old employer has adequate staffing?

A case can be made for it when literal lives are on the line (the same reason essential services like medicine are often limited in what job actions they can take). Whether it's a legal requirement or not, it's definitely a moral one. Heck, I'd argue that the new hospital has a moral obligation to not hire these doctors because they are willing to endanger their old patients by abandoning the other hospital with inadequate warning, suggesting that they'll do the same in the future whenever they get a better offer.

Revelation34 posted...

Says who?

Conditions of employment are generally set by employers, not the government. The exception is anything to do with workplace safety, and while you could argue that requiring employees to be fit enough to handle the work safely falls under that, the legal requirement to enforce that standard falls on the employer, not the employee. An employee that fails to meet their job's physical fitness requirements should just be fired (or not hired), not subject to any legal penalty. Legal penalties should only apply if the employer fails to enforce the job's physical fitness requirements (presumably by firing them, or at least threatening to do so if they don't improve) and people are endangered as a result.

Of course, in the case of police, fire, and military, the government is the employer, but the basic structure still remains the same: Employees that fail to meet the job's standards should be fired, not subjected to legal penalties.

LinkPizza posted...

You has to pay? In Canada? Im in the US and didnt have to pay

Depends where you are in Canada. Around here (NS), PCR and rapid tests are both free, though they've recently started limiting how many rapid tests people can take due to supply concerns (there are still plenty for everyone to test twice a week). In Ontario, a pack of 5 rapid tests is $40, which is more of a problem.

BigRhinoX posted...

Your country pays. Your taxes pay. You pay.

But they've already paid, so you might as well take advantage of it. No, fighting the greatest public health crisis in a century is not free. There will be a need for tax increases in the years to come to offset the deficit this whole mess has incurred. That's just the nature of the beast. Actively resisting efforts to bring it under control under the pretense of saving money, however, makes absolutely no sense. That just prolongs it and makes it even more expensive, especially when you have to start looking at expanding hospital capacities to handle the consequences of letting Covid spread unrestrained.

BigRhinoX posted...

To the person talking about vaccines rising the life expectancy, were those MRNA vaxxs?

Why are you so insistent that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines, or otherwise should not be counted?

BigRhinoX posted...

Did they say the other vaccines were just 2 dose shots that slowly turned into the CEO CALLING THE FIRST 2 SHOTS INEFFECTIVE and saying they you just need more of it - the same dose, same recipe?

Once again, the disease has changed significantly since the vaccines were first developed. Alpha didn't even exist then, let alone Delta or Omicron. Of course the existing vaccines are going to be of limited use in battling a variant that has specifically evolved to dodge existing immunity. They remain, however, our best option for reducing infection rates (as little as they do against Omicron) and for reducing the severity of infections (which they still do, even for Omicron), and it remains a fact that booster doses help with that. Once again, Omicron is not the only variant still floating around, as much as it is dominating now, and vaccines will continue to help against Delta once Omicron burns itself out (giving virtually no useful immunity against Delta in the process, given the variation in antigens).

Needing boosters to maintain immunity is not unusual. This is more frequent than usual, certainly, but there's also never been a vaccine against a coronavirus before. Some challenges are to be expected. Needing periodic boosters to keep that immunity up does not challenge the legitimacy of the vaccines any more than needing to eat repeatedly challenges that legitimacy of food.

BigRhinoX posted...

Why are people scared of a government shot for your safety that, if any scientist or doctor that disagrees with the given narrative loses their job?

Should a doctor that promotes treating meningitis with garlic and horseradish instead of antibiotics keep their job? Medical professionals that actively endanger the public generally don't remain medical professionals for very long. That's less to do with "disagreeing with the narrative" and more to do with "promoting bad science in a way that will kill people."

Not to mention so many people like you are fond of complaining about dissenting voices being silenced, but they never seem to share any actual examples of it happening on a significant scale. I wonder why that might be...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Am I reading this right?

So instead of making a counter offer, they just sued with the mindset of: "we own your asses"?

Pretty much. It sounds like their new employer refused to coordinate any kind of transition plan that would lessen the impact of them leaving, so the blame isn't entirely on the first hospital, but it doesn't sound like they worked particularly hard to make the doctors want to stay.

That too. A smoothie place is unlikely to be able to get their blenders clean enough to make them safe for severe allergies, which actually means they should probably have refused to serve him if he had informed them of the allergy.

Yes, that is the source of that 61% figure I cited. It doesn't become a vaster majority just because you also googled it; everything I said incorporated that data.

EclairReturns posted...

The character around whom the plot revolves, so the third option. Additionally, there can be more than one main character in a given work of fiction.

Pretty much this exactly. It's usually the character we plays as, in the case of games, but exceptions exist where the player character basically just exists to observe a third-person story that unfolds around other characters.

They generally do (though as a matter of employment conditions, since the law really has no place dictating that). It's worth reviewing those requirements from time to time to make sure they actually reflect the needs of the job (especially as technological improvements reduce those needs) and aren't just being kept around as a matter of elitist prestige, but most people don't object to jobs having appropriate physical fitness requirements.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

How close is that to the obesity rate?

BlackScythe0 posted...

That statistic is barely higher than rate of being overweight in america in general with like 69% of americans being overweight or obese. I'd say it's probably higher due to the higher rate of mental illness is vets.

Higher, by enough of a margin to expect that there's something going on there, but it's not a massive difference. The increased incidence of mental illness and sudden, significant drop in physical activity levels after being discharged are probably enough to explain it.

Sarcasthma posted...

Apparently, the dad specifically requested no peanuts in the smoothie but didn't mention it was due to a food allergy.

In which case, I think he's SOL. Allergy precautions in food service are significantly more stringent than the response to "I don't want this" is. Unless you actually tell them that it's necessary to avoid cross-contamination, they're just going to avoid putting the item into your food, not take any extra steps to prevent cross-contamination.

Revelation34 posted...

No you wouldn't since Swedish isn't a race.

"Racism" is collquially used as a blanket term for prejudicial discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, culture, or religion, in addition to race. There's room to argue that that's inaccurate, but that's generally just being pedantic for no reason, since the fundamental attitudes and potential harms are virtually identical across all of those bases for discrimination, and lumping them all under "racism" as a blanket term saves a buttload of syllables.

Revelation34 posted...

Lol.

It's not impossible, but with Nike refusing to name the third party, I'm inclined to believe that his vaccination is legit and he's just wary of releasing his health information when there can be no accountability for it.

Now, my guess is that Nike's being so secretive because there actually is no third party verification service. They're just saying that there is to deter people from trying to use fake cards, but for the sake of saving money, they're just having managers tick a box and file the information away without doing anything to verify it. That seems more likely than that they're engaged in some grand conspiracy to give people's vaccination statuses to some third party that's going to sell them, since I don't think vaccination status is going to be all that valuable (except possibly to ambulance chasers that are banking on serious long-term side effects and want to be first in line to handle any potential class action suits).

Revelation34 posted...

Cameras are clearly useless.

Honestly, they kind of are. You're generally lucky to get a definitive identification from most security cameras, especially in a more chaotic situation where people are moving around a lot. They do absolutely nothing during the incident, so they can't be used to help identify and remove problem individuals from the situation, so you're limited to hoping a camera caught a clear image and then also you can manage to match that image to a person (who often isn't even local, in the case of sporting events), which usually relies on somebody that knows them turning them in.

Cameras exist mostly as deterrents, as much as people like to think they guarantee the criminal would be caught. For most petty crimes, it's not worth police's time to seriously investigate any footage they get.

Mad_Max posted...

First, you folks are on the outside of an inside joke.

And not even a particularly obscure inside joke. I'm surprised people are jumping on the bigger picture instead of joining in (with the exception of one or two specific posters with a predilection for making misogynistic generalizations whenever possible. I'm not surprised they took that route).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't think that's how that works. So long as the protest as a whole is mostly peaceful no one participating in the protest can get in trouble. You need to think more collectivist to understand it.

You need to think more in terms of basic physical reality to understand it. If you have a crowd of 1000 people and 6 of them are causing trouble, arresting those 6 entails identifying them, wading through 994 other people to the last place you saw them, and hoping that they're still there and that you still remember what they look like well enough to identify them. You then have to hope that, once you manage to arrest the right person, enough witnesses come forward to confirm that they are guilty to actually allow charges to stick, since the arresting officers aren't likely to be able to present any evidence. Otherwise, they're released with no charges and all that work was for nothing. All of this while a significant chunk of the department's resources are tied up in riot control in case things get out of hand, so officers probably aren't even available to do any of that.

By contrast, this was six people sitting in the middle of a lobby pouting like toddlers. Easy to identify, easy to reach, easy to charge. You don't need to blame some grand ideological conspiracy by the government to *checks notes* erode its own ability to enforce its laws (because we all know evil totalitarian governments love doing that so much). This is common sense: This was an easy arrest, arresting troublemakers in the middle of a large protest is hard (hence riot control tends to involve using measures like tear gas to encourage people to disperse, rather than focusing on arresting individuals).

Yeah, the whole "we can't tell you where we're sending your health information" thing makes Nike's position seem a lot less legit. Dude should be able to sue for that under HIPAA.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Nah, as long as they're mostly peaceful the rest doesn't matter.

So long as they're mostly peaceful, there are no grounds for arresting most of the people present. Therein we arrive at one of the major challenges in arresting troublemakers in large protests: finding them.

Revelation34 posted...

Never happened.

He's presenting a hypothetical situation that he thinks is analogous. It's... really not, and he worded it extremely poorly such that it took me a moment to realize that's what he was doing, but he's not actually claiming that it happened.

BigRhinoX posted...

If the vaccine is preventing people from catching and spreading it. How come the vaccinated are still catching it at crazy rates?

adjl posted...

the vaccine-avoidant strain that's running rampant right now (which is overwhelmingly the primary culprit for breakthrough cases)

Please try to keep up.

BigRhinoX posted...

Why check constantly for something you dont have symptoms of?

Because asymptomatic transmission has been a major problem with Covid since day 1. If case numbers are low enough that individual exposures can be readily identified, it's generally only going to be worthwhile to test if you've been exposed or if you have symptoms, but when case numbers are too high for that (as they currently are in every province), regular asymptomatic testing is extremely valuable for catching cases early and limiting the number of other people they infect.

BigRhinoX posted...

If you look at the numbers in Canada in youd see that a vast, VAST majority of the deaths are people over 80 (the life expectancy)

61% is not a "vast majority." Even then, Canada has generally done a pretty good job of keeping Covid under control, including excellent vaccine uptake. That has improved overall outcomes because hospitals have been more able to treat those that are able to recover from serious cases, which in turn means that most of the deaths are going to happen among those that are too vulnerable to recover. By contrast, 52% of US deaths have been among the 75+ crowd.

Of course, that's without even considering how dumb it is to look at Covid only in terms of deaths. ICU cases are extremely debilitating (my coworker's friend had to learn how to walk again), non-ICU hospitalizations aren't exactly great either, and long Covid has put quite a few young people on disability indefinitely. To say nothing of concerns about infecting older people, since most of us that aren't serial killers don't like killing people just because they're old.

Is Covid an instant death sentence for everyone that looks at it? Of course not. Is it nevertheless a serious enough issue that taking precautions against it is a good idea? Absolutely. It's just a vaccination, dude. No need to be so afraid of it.

BigRhinoX posted...

Im going to assume in your 20s or younger

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/7690-how-old-are-you

Given the trends in the age of this site's userbase, that's not a very sensible assumption. That poll is 2.5 years old, but given how its results have been shifting over the years, I expect the mean has pretty much just gone up by 2-2.5 years since then. By and large, the only people still using GameFAQs are the people that have been doing so for well over a decade.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not talking about a given individual being singled out.

Individuals have to be singled out to be arrested. That's the simple practical reality of the matter. If the situation prevents you from singling people out, arresting people for committing crimes in that situation becomes very difficult.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm talking about the support for all protesting, except for when there isn't.

Which means you're fundamentally misunderstanding the reality of the situation and I really don't know how to help you with that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not many details were given in the first post. How did they make it dangerous for the museum to keep doing museum things?

By violating the safety protocols that were in place and thereby unnecessarily putting other visitors at risk. In case you haven't noticed, there's a global public health crisis that has necessitated certain countermeasures to reduce the associated risks, countermeasures which these idiots got butthurt about and decided to ignore (all of which is outlined in the first post, despite your belief that it lacks details).

The_tall_midget posted...

A few hypothesis, but one of the most popular was that corn, potato, and ground meat were cheap back in the days and the Asian workers that were hired to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. So basically they fed Asian workers a mix of that.

That hypothesis is debated though since some argue it came before the dish appeared on Canadian tables and that said workers mostly ate rice and soy beans.

That makes some sense.

It got some attention when the trailer first came out, but nobody's really talked about it since because there haven't (to my knowledge) been any updates.

joemodda posted...

Looks great. It's honestly mind boggling how a single dev can churn out games better than certain AAA dev companies can

Honestly, it's not that surprising. It's impressive that they can handle all of the different aspects solo, but fundamentally, making a good game has very little to do with budget and everything to do with having good ideas and the competency to assemble those ideas into a game. Larger budgets make it easier to find those ideas and talents, since having a larger team increases the chance of finding them and lets you assign people to different tasks based on what they're good at, but you also run into the need to resolve conflicting opinions and trash some ideas because the game needs to be more popular in order to turn a profit. Get into the AAA space, and you've got shareholders demanding ridiculous RoI's on every game you produce, which just makes that even worse.

Basically, there's a reason the indie game market has grown so fast: People like games that were made by people who like games instead of by giant corporations that are looking to milk games for every cent they can.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if they had set more things on fire they would have been left alone?

More accurately, if there were a couple thousand more people and the police were focused on riot control and not on sending a couple cops to arrest a small handful of people that were sitting where they shouldn't, they probably wouldn't have been arrested. That's a simple matter of logistics and numbers: The more chaotic the situation and the more people involved, the less likely any given individual is to be singled out.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

... and immediately released.

Depends on the nature of the crime they committed. Trespassing doesn't usually result in jail time. Assault does. Preventing people from safely patronizing a business definitely leans more toward the latter.

Zeus posted...

Yet another stunningly awful post from BS0. jfc, why are you so fixated on stealing kids from parents?

Do you honestly think the decision to bring the child along on this little stunt was anything more than a ploy to make the government look bad for arresting a child? Do you honestly think that parents who are willing to exploit their children as political pawns like that are good parents?

Zeus posted...

Unlikely, because they pick and choose when to enforce that stuff.

It might depend on what actual harm they were causing, but in such an unambiguous case of trespassing as this (which interfered with the business' ability to safely operate), it's a given that they'd at least be removed, if not actually taken into custody.

Plus, you know, there's the whole bit where protesting police brutality is infinitely more justifiable than protesting against public health (boiling down to "stop hurting people" vs. "let me hurt people"), but people seem to like glossing over that whenever they equivocate the two.

The_tall_midget posted...

Don't get me started on why the French translation for Shepherd's pie is "Pat chinois." I mean, since we're on historical food stuff.

I have heard that name (because bilingual country), but I've never actually stopped to consider the reason for it. Where does it come from?

Unbridled9 posted...

Now, this hypothetical person tries eating at all three places and comes to realize that the Mexican places are all terrible. Not only do all three have lazy staff and dirty places but their food is bad. Since other places focusing on culture foods are at least varied, would it be unreasonable for him to assume that the reason these places sucked was because they were Mexican?

Generally, yes. Especially so in the modern world, where online reviews and opportunities to discuss restaurant experiences with others outside of your immediate area are so abundant that there's no reason to restrict your opinion to what you can generalize from your personal opinion.

Unbridled9 posted...

Likewise, if he went to a different town but then refused to eat at a Mexican restaurant because his past experiences have taught him to expect rude staff, dirty establishments, and food that's bad, would he be racist for doing so?

That's going to depend on the nature of the refusal. If he refuses to accept his friends' claims that a given restaurant is good simply because it's Mexican, that's being racist (or the culinary equivalent, if he's not making it about the people, though what you're describing is a matter of making assumptions about the people running the restaurants). If he's picking out a place himself and just ignores the Mexican options because he's so used to not considering them whenever he goes out to eat and/or thinks he's not a fan of Mexican food, less so, since that's more of a passive bias than something deliberate.

Obviously, there are some grey areas here, and varying degrees to which this can manifest. The amount of actual harm done can also be pretty variable, including being totally harmless in many cases. Like many things, the key point is to try to keep an open mind and not generalize inappropriately, especially when it comes to assumptions about people.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Jeez, he could have just been jerkin' it

Presumably, there was more nuance to it than that. I believe it also indicates where they are, so I'm guessing he was somewhere he shouldn't have been.

BigRhinoX posted... If the vaxx

I don't know why you people insist on trying to suggest that the vaccine is somehow not a vaccine, but there's really no basis for doing so.

BigRhinoX posted...

doesnt stop people from catching or spreading,

It does reduce the risk of both contracting and spreading it. That protection is significantly reduced for Omicron, but Omicron is not the only active variant, and the vaccine still plays an important public health role by reducing the length of time Omicron cases are infectious.

BigRhinoX posted...

why is it so important that everyone get it?

To reduce case counts as much as possible, as well as to reduce the risk of hospitals being clogged with Covid patients and dealing with outbreaks that put other patients at risk.

BigRhinoX posted...

A majority of the covid cases in Canada are in vaccinated.

Canada's just shy of 80% fully vaccinated. Even without taking into account the vaccine-avoidant strain that's running rampant right now (which is overwhelmingly the primary culprit for breakthrough cases), anything less than 75% efficacy would result in a majority of Canadian cases being among the vaccinated.

The_tall_midget posted...

Anyone who eats Yorkshire pudding is obligated to finish it by gently wiping their mouth with the CORNER of a napkin, while wearing a monocle, and then proclaiming, "I say!"

The irony of this being that Yorkshire pudding is traditionally a lunch for miners, given the high caloric density. It's about as working-class as food gets, if you look just at the history. It's even managed to resist the trend of poor people food becoming rich people food (lobster being the best-known example) because it's made from relatively cheap staples, though it has definitely made its way onto expensive plates.

Revelation34 posted...

Why are you supporting shitty cops?

Do you really think it's the police's job to arrange for/act as a babysitter? There are absolutely many terrible cops out there, but this is not an example of that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The 2020 protests indicated otherwise.

No they didn't. They just indicated that arresting somebody for trespassing/vandalism is really hard in the middle of a riot (unless they're stupid and take selfies the whole time that they later share, which has been very helpful for prosecuting the Capitol rioters). Had 6 BLM protesters broken into a building, they would have been similarly arrested.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/4/9/AAFUswAAC131.jpg

I heard once about a couple that had their Fitbits synchronized so they'd know when the other was exercising, and the wife was working a night shift when she got a notification that her husband was doing cardio at 2 am. The marriage did not survive.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. I'm sure some purists would disagree, but it's a fairly heavily spiced sausage anyway, so I expect there isn't a huge difference in flavour either way.

wpot posted...

It's just: if a meat & potato casserole is the example that springs to mind when thinking of a non-bland food... *shrug emoji*

That, I can agree with. There's certainly nothing wrong with meat and potatoes, but I'm not going to pretend it's exciting or particularly strongly flavourful.

Revelation34 posted...

Haggis is illegal in America.

Specifically, sheep lungs are. You can find lung-free haggis that's quite legal.

I recently tried my hand at needle felting to make some Christmas presents for my girlfriend. It's pretty entertaining, and very easy to pick up. Plenty of places sell kits that have everything you need to get started, plus there are countless directions available online for projects.

Full Throttle posted...

Rico said "I tell my babies to be proud of their mom because she was very strong and she fought until the very end

Ah yes, "fought until the end" by refusing the strongest possible weapon any of us have in this fight and choosing to take unnecessary risks. She fought alright. For the enemy.

dioxxys posted...

I don't know where this bulls*** comes from about not getting vaccinated for religious reasons, it just sounds like a reason for an excuse to be exempt from being vaccinated.

It is. Ultimately, people are scared, which isn't unreasonable (it's a weird situation and some uncertainty is perfectly justified), but rather than admitting to their fear and letting more knowledgeable people assuage their concerns, they're doubling down on it and clinging to whatever excuses they can find to feel more justified.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And that's why your food is bad.

If your opinion is "food without horseradish is bad," sure, but that's such circular logic that you're not really saying anything meaningful by saying that.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Bland is burying everything in the same 5 spices so it may as well be the same food.

As opposed to burying everything in the same one condiment because otherwise it doesn't taste like much of anything? You can't say "if you think it's bland, add horseradish," then turn around and accuse other cuisines of hiding behind homogeneous spice palates.

Objectively, English cuisine tends to be blander than cuisines that use stronger spices (not counting curry as "English cuisine" because it's very unarguably an import, as much as it's become extremely popular in England). That's not a matter of opinion: things with weaker flavours in them are less flavourful. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. There's plenty of merit in subtler flavours, especially if balanced with stronger accent flavours that complement them (such as horseradish, though again, anyone relying exclusively on that to make food interesting has a few things to learn about seasoning) That is, however, what "bland" means, and you're not going to get anywhere trying to convince people to give English cuisine more of a chance by denying it.

wpot posted...

Shepherd's Pie is hamburger, mashed potato, and veggies. Again, if you throw a bunch of pepper or something on it maybe it could have some zing, but that's a pretty bland start.

The recipe I usually use has thyme, rosemary, worcestershire sauce, and beef broth mixed in there, which makes for some nice flavours. It's still nothing strong, and it benefits from having a bit of ketchup or a relish to spice things up a bit, but it's flavourful enough to be enjoyable, in my books.