Web Developer by day, and aspiring Swift developer at night.
Yo, that dog bowl is off da chain!
Those who are suggesting Biden do this or that, are forgetting the most important thing about coup d’état: his “followers” would need to actually act on his orders.
And even if they were to do that, which I doubt they would, I don’t think SCOTUS made the rank and file immune to prosecution. While they may have made it harder for Jan 6 obstructionists to be pursued, I’m pretty sure that’s limited to those Jan 6’ers. So anyone following Biden’s orders would likely see jail (or worse). Sure Biden could pardon them, but that would only happen if a) Biden was still president after a failed coup, and 2) the people being pardoned would need to be prosecuted first, which is lengthy, disruptive, and expensive.
This only helps republicans, because as horrible as they are, the one thing they excel at more than their capacity for hate is their ability to unify and work together. Democrats… yeah, ain’t happening.
Office politics sure do suck.
I’m very much a laymen, and this is purely my opinion, but this whole idea that people can say whatever they want because of freedom of speech is bullshit. I get it’s nuanced: you’re free to say what you want, but not free from the consequences. Blah blah blah. Problem is, no one can agree on the consequences. People like this can continue to spew their hurtful hate left and right, and nothing is done to them to punish them for their obvious intolerance. Meanwhile, the people that are affected by this vitriolic bullshit have to keep looking over their shoulders every damn day of their lives waiting for the inevitable escalation that will come.
Not true. Look up the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the EEOC. Here, I’ll do it for you. But if I am mistaken, I’d love to know where it defines the vision criteria for exclusion.
Actually, when I was looking it up, it sounds like you’re talking about being considered legally blind and qualifying for Social Security disability benefits, which is not the same as being protected under the ADA.
You’re right. I made an assumption about where she lives. I shouldn’t have, but I did. The advice about talking to a lawyer to know her rights, though, is universal regardless of where she lives. So I still stand by my statements.
It’s not the heat that dewrinkles clothes. It’s humidity. Try it in a room full of steam.
Two options for dealing with wrinkles:
There is a third option: wear wrinkly clothes and dgaf.
According to the EEOC, it’s a disability:
A vision impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict,” an individual’s ability to see in order to be a disability, as long as the individual’s vision is substantially limited when compared to the vision of most people in the general population.
And it sounds like her employer is doing the right thing. But if ever she feels she is not being treated fairly, she should talk to a lawyer to be sure. Don’t just let it slide because she has one good eye. Hell it might be good to talk to a lawyer anyway, so she knows what to look out for in the future if things happen to change.
Damnit I was going to post the same thing lol.
Hey, for what it’s worth (which is up to you to decide), I enjoy your being here. I get that you’re beyond frustrated about your personal life stuff. From what little I do know, it sounds horrible. So no shade there at all. It’s tough.
But, despite that, you come here and have helped build communities where people can go and let off steam and forget their personal shit for a few moments, and for some of us, that’s tremendous. You could shrug it off; you’ve not met these people in real life. I don’t know, maybe you have. But to some of us, it’s a little something we can look forward to because it helps us cope when we have little else. So thank you for that.
Anyway, carry on and fuck the haters. You can’t please everyone.
My god that was painful to watch. Skip ahead to the last minute of the video, unless you like being tortured with over the top “Hello, fellow kids” corporate BS.
Useful in fighting as it helps protect the lower jaw and teeth?
But then again, it could simply be a trait we have developed over the millennia, and there is no deeper meaning to it.
As in a signal of how manly a man truly is, comparative to still being a boy.
Edit: also, hair is counter productive in a fight, because it gives your opponent something to grab a hold of and use against you.
Personally, I’ve always hated this notion of a nuclear family, and that there is some standard that people must go by, lest you be weird or lesser of a person. The more that times goes on, and the economy is the way it is, the more I feel justified in my thinking.
I lived with my folks into my late 20s. I only moved out because I went on a date with a girl, and never left. She never said anything, so I kept going back to her place. It just sort of happened. If I hadn’t met her, I don’t know when I’d have moved out of my parent’s house.
If your mother is okay with it, why the hell not? She probably enjoys the company. I currently live alone, except the weeks I have my kids, and while I do enjoy time to myself, I look forward to having my boys around. I’ve told my sons that no matter how old they are, or what happens in their life, they will always have a home with me. My youngest (9) states he is never moving out, and he’s not one to joke about that. 😅
I say, if it works for you and your family, do it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and fuck off to anybody who says otherwise.
I can certainly relate. I do not have the traditional sense of what is beauty and what is not. I tend to also gravitate toward more natural beauty; i.e., little-to-no make-up, natural breast (even if they are small), normal fitting clothing, those damn filters on photos.
Not only is it a double standard (how would society look upon men who stuffed their pants), it doesn’t help with my inability to easily distinguish who you are out of a crowd of other people.
If you’ve never had the pleasure of visiting !tenforward@lemmy.world, then I’d say you’re missing out. Between !@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world and !@ummthatguy@lemmy.world, it’s always a party.
If you’re willing, I feel there is a bias in your argument that I’d like to explore more with you.
You make the excellent point that plants are living organisms as well, but you also make the assumption that “it is much more humane to kill life forms without a brain.” You then go on to suggest that their sole purpose for existence is nothing more than reproduction.
I’d like to challenge both of those assertions. But before I continue, I want to make certain of my position as anecdotal, as I am not an expert in these matters.
It turns out that plants can see, smell, feel, and have a memory. And according to the scientist in the article, plants and humans also share DNA.
We’ve all heard the advice that we should talk to our plants, as they react more positively (grow) to the sound of our voices. We also know that plants play a vital role in our existence.
The most obvious is converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. They also provide shelter and protection for animals. They also help produce about 10% of the moisture in our atmosphere.
As for brains, no they do not have the same type of brain or nervous system that we as humans are accustomed to having. But that is not to say that plants are incapable of making decisions.
Take the Venus Flytrap as an example: it can detect when a bug has landed inside of its mouth, and after having another external stimuli triggered will it decide to trap that bug inside before it devours it for nutrients.
I could go on, such that plants do communicate with other (e.g., grass when cut, fungus creating underground networks to each other).
We’re all forgetting one important factor: quality over quantity. First of all, the whale doesn’t just sit in one place to broadcast their 80km calls. We can’t really say that about a marine biologist; who more than likely is out to sea and away from anyone else using Tinder.
I’d bet those whales are getting more action than that marine biologist, despite having a “shorter” distance on their mating calls.
Suck on that, you stupid marine biologist and your decade of education and training.
I’m inclined to think that they look for known data breaches using your email address or alias, and if found they will tell you what kind of data is associated with the breach; e.g., social security, physical address, etc. So they don’t need to actually know that information, because they’re not searching using that information.