superdug

Have you been outside?

The South is frozen right now and late last summer Alcapoca got hit with what went from a category 1 hurricane and in two nights over the gulf turned into a category 5 and decimated the entire town.

I think you may have had a bit too much cynic juice

I concur, however it generally isn’t good for the majority when the minority takes over as generally the minority has a discrimination grudge.

Eventually we’ll end up at some type of precipice in which our heroes will save us much like The Day The Rarth Stood Still

Not sure if you’re trolling, but how would one expect Newton to not deliver the most simplistic explanation of something no one else had bothered to think up yet? Since every thought on the theory since Newton proposed it would therefore be a more complete theory because something from the next party’s ponderings to be added to the original theory…

Fret not friend, I see turtles ahead

I was so saddened by this title.. I thought there was a way to find annoying neighbors (at homes I’m interested in acquiring) and assumed this was a service for literally finding nearby annoy[ing] neighbors. To then go through the comments and find that this is a service with a minimum input of addresses and census data which are both freely available as is this service. Bravo hn!

But how is it beneficial to those who don’t feel violated beyond the point of absolute necessity to always refuse consent because not every advertisement is guaranteed by nature to always be evil and have not yet come to a similar conclusion as yours as they believe that advertisement as a whole on a digital medium specifically in regards to transactions on a monetary level has not yet met their personal defined level of it being ultimately net evil. And therefore feel arguing against a ban of the practice entirely is not currently the most pressing issue with advertising that you keep telling them, their argument holds no merit, which lends itself to the personal assumption that what they are doing is ultimately wrong and therefore they should feel ashamed for it. They are not currently experiencing a feeling of guilt or shame about expressing their opinion and you are insisting, but not projecting, that they should. Ultimately this devolves into a basic summation of simply having their feelings hurt and wanting you to stop arguing your point, as you both actually understand each each other and can therefore continue this civil discussion we’re having and all continually agree that ultimately our shared responsibility society is working and we are still progressing despite the challenges.

But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin with? Again with specificity at advertisements on a digital medium where there is an enticement to spend money suggested by a third party and they are not evil?

That’s not an invalid personal opinion but does not make it true for absolutely everyone else at the same time.

But again, why is selling stuff abhorred by you as an absolute. A transaction which is facilitated by money is the key component to guaranteed assertion that a single valued skill can be exercised for any good or service at any time so long as everyone agrees that the compensation is fair and reasonable by all concerned parties. It’s one of fundamental components of an interdependent system that furthers the entire race at the same time and regulates itself to follow the current definition of justice needed to ensure continued success of all parties involved. As progress moves forward so then does the equality shared benefit of a longer and more fulfilling existence than would have otherwise been impossible.

Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil. Taking into account that the onus of every advertisement is to entice you to do something that you may have otherwise not considered we still do not negate the need for an advertisement to be evil. Now, you may very well be enticed to do something that is not in absolutely everyone’s best interests in mind, which does indeed qualify as evil. And I believe we agree that there are far too many advertisements prevalent that are indeed evil when referring specifically towards advertisements on a digital medium. So I think that the argument is valid that ending all advertising would ultimately prevent all evil advertising it would also prevent any not evil advertising from ever happening as well. Now again, that may be perfectly acceptable to you, your argument that advertising should not happen at all isn’t really practical for absolutely everyone who does or doesn’t support your absolute opinion on advertisements, as contrary to you, but they want you to simply affirm that their opinion is not absolutely based on them supporting the evil ads that you both abhor.

I’m not arguing that you don’t have a valid point nor that the feature request should be beneficial for the project to add to gain wider adoption. I know why this feature isn’t there though, because doubly encrypting something doesn’t do anything but add another layer of protection they guarantee by default, but that the computational cost of this possibly not needed protection is assumed by the provider and not the consumer. On top of which other features have obviously been added before it, with an announcement of the service with the features that differentiate it from already available and established competing services.

Meh. Come out with the hard truth, most expenditures we make are not fulfilling. The idea that we are spending money to gain something is a bullshit lie we convince ourselves of. Unfortunately non-tangible investments are the most terrifying expenditures. You physically have nothing to show for the money you no longer have and you question its validity and go so far as to course correct and buy something you can hold onto forever. What are these expenditures? Donations, endowments, and just using some of your means to give to someone who can benefit more than you could ever imagine. You know your neighbor who could use a night off, deliver dinner to them and their family. Your cousin who just got out on his own, deliver a weeks worth of essentials from Walmart. I could go on and on, but my personal way of expending my disposable income now a days is to do a free to sub-$100 favor for someone I know would appreciate help, but is too proud to ever ask for something that they weren’t deathly desperate of needing. You come off as an empathetic and generous human being and you don’t ever feel taken advantage of because you’re the one who initiated it.

What I believe OP was getting at is that while he’s being an asshole he’s completely tormented by his own mind not allowing him empathy or understanding beyond his suffering. Since he, like so many with bipolar disorder (myself included) is that the cycle of suffering and abhorrent behavior will continue until he can accept that his brain will not let him out of torment long enough to see how his infliction is broadcast outward and who it really effects. Now combine that with the world’s biggest microphone being used by a man with enough means that it will be dumb luck for him to realize it as he has no consequences for his actions. It’s not impossible to make that realization on your own and it’s even harder to make it stick without medication to make your brain break out of a cycle that you have no more control over than anyone else, and it’s your own mind doing it to you.