Boogie_Man

malicious

adjective Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.

malice noun 1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. The intent to commit an unlawful act without justification or excuse. 3. An improper motive for an action, such as desire to cause injury to another.

I think the distinction is that they think it's a Pokemon clone, not that they think it's a Pokemon.

Unless they're flexing their 24 inch pythons and asking me what I'm gonna do brother when Hulkamania takes my other wheel it'd be hard to take it as aggression.

I'm not able to tell: does the author imply the "lost your wheel?" type comedy questions are put-downs? I have trouble seeing it that way. I would call it more of a jest than an insult and more of a basic attempt at humor that notes the uniqueness of the situation. To call noting anything that is odd a put down stretches the limits of credibility.

Cigs: Not telling him he couldn't smoke, but that he could only smoke outside bare-chested one winter Eating: Mirror at gut hight in the kitchen Drinking: Reading that Infinite Jest section [pick one] twice a week Weed: Picked a fist fight with the guy I bought it from (he won) (this section is just a joke I do not commit crimes) The only thing a human man can't give up is onanism (I don't believe those who say they do).

Quitting things for me personally requires tricking my base lizard brain. I recall an Onion News video with a parody PSA: "Smoking is Gay". You have to use the smart guy you to outsmart the dumb guy you. Set traps for him. Anticipate his moves and crush him.

Is this entirely factitious, or did someone actually photograph one of Bob Dylan's houses once a year, layer "parodic humor" on top of it, and then publish it online? If the former, hardy har har. If the latter, I worry sincerely about the wellbeing of the person who completed this strange action, regardless of the layer of "it's just a joke I'm in on" placed on top.

Edit: disregard. I realized I'm just "being a hater" on HN lately which is in the wrong spirit. My bad.

I've recently listened to several Terry Gross interviews, and the David Bowie interview stands out to me as particularly bad. I think she frequently makes "educated guesses" about how her guests will respond about their thoughts, feelings, and motivations, and will have follow up questions prepared based on these anticipated responses. When she's right, things go well. When she's wrong, she just keeps plowing forward with homerun swings that completely whiff. She sometimes seems quietly incredulous that other people have different values and methods of reasoning, or that their perception of themselves does not match her research.

To be fair and not negative exclusively, I think she's very good at knowing how long to let people talk (some of this might be editing), very good at creating a "human connection" with the subjects, and reasonably good at keeping things interesting.

I tried to rob a Costco, but my plan failed because I didn't bring eight guns.

Can you speak briefly on the economics of you purchasing at a bulk store?

I can't find a good link, but I think that the average is dragged down significantly by infant death and that a life expectancy of 40 doesn't mean that you should expect to die at 40 if you've already made it to adulthood.

Work insanely hard from 20 to 45, retire with citizenship and land. 50% chance of survival. Seems like a very decent deal.

I hear what you're saying, thank you for clarifying for op. I think there is a logical jump from coordinating to controlling in this instance. The article doesn't say "The Jews control the media", but rather "Here are documented instances of pro-Israeli people in positions of power coordinating to do X Y or Z".

I can understand that it might seem like an attack on Israel itself, and that an attack on Israel might actually be the intended purpose of the reporting, but it's hard for me to prioritize that over the importance of honest reporting of this sort. It's journalism that is informative and relevant, and that seems to be angering powerful people. I would like a companion peace on the propaganda war from "the other side", but this is the only one available to me at the moment. Fostering an environment in which this sort of journalism can safely be done is critical.

I shift from making myself not think about it to becoming a complete paranoid nut to telling myself it probably isn't so bad and doesn't matter a few times a year. There are levels to this sort of thinking, and it exists on a spectrum. I think everyone can agree on a conceptual level that manipulation occurs. A basic, mostly harmless example would be a music star "organically going viral" and "being discovered as a result" not being quite as organic as it seems. Where it changes from healthy skepticism to paranoia is a line I struggle to draw personally.

I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to imply. As far as I can tell it's a very indirect attempt to imply that people "having a nerve struck" over "Jews coordinating", are bad in a nonspecific way. Can you state more clearly what you mean so I can consider it?

This article, more than making me feel one way or another about the particular issue at hand (Isreal Hamas) makes me speculate what other unknown, better coordinated, better funded, interest groups might be doing this sort of thing on a massive scale.

I'm reminded of the "Come out - we have you surrounded" meme where the mentally insane man is hiding behind a desk with a shotgun screaming "Get out of my head" or "I hate the Antichrist", because that's how thinking about these groups make me feel

Reading this post makes me desirous of an email provider political compass chart.

I think the commenter is referring to the generic "rainbow coalition" language about helping disabled marginalized pregnant women in Africa. I don't think anyone would consider those things as bad, but I can see someone considering them a needless deviation from what (they perceive) Mozilla should be: a FOSS company. It strikes me personally as exceptionally cooperate, which is fine as long as it's not distracting from the core tenants of FOSS. Not everyone can be the FSF.

ChatGPT constantly sounding like a psychotic millennial BuzzFeed writer always makes me a little nervous about the training data.

As a kid I used to sit across from the drive in and watch. I also used to watch other people's TV's through their windows before I knew it was creepy.

Required default response to all of these comments calling me a criminal (that is the implication of grift, intended or not): I have and will never ever pay one red cent to any company to watch videos for the purpose of entertainment outside of specific creators making high quality content that I personally enjoy. You can not make me. I have zero (0) moral compunction on the subject. I will explore every legal avenue. Weep and gnash your teeth. If every other legal avenue is exhausted I will imagine new Top Cat episodes in my head. You cannot stop me.

There are murderers in prison who make excellent pasta.

I have and will never ever pay one red cent to any company to watch videos for the purpose of entertainment outside of specific creators making high quality content that I personally enjoy. You can not make me. I have zero (0) moral compunction on the subject. I will explore every legal avenue from adblockers to television antennas to checking out DVDs from a local library. Entertainment is a cesspool of propagandizing morrally corrupt profiteers (independent of any race or identity, it is a conspiracy of greed). Weep and gnash your teeth. If every other legal avenue is exhausted I will imagine new Top Cat episodes in my head. You cannot stop me.

Is the Stanford Review known for an (American) "Conservative" bent? Other headlines like "Femininity, not Feminism" and "How Hamas Broke the Progressive Mind" lead me to believe that is the case. Perhaps this is a natural response to the general (American) "Liberal" bent of a college campus.

Correct except for the "share with your wife" bit. That implies intentional deception, which does not appear to be what the developer is doing.

If software prevents me from performing a simple action on my files on my machine (unless this is the specific intended function I had for the program) it is, in the simplest sense of the term, malware. It has done me malice. People pay to be harmed, go figure.

Two answers

General answer: Because it's needless complexity (relying on a company's service rather than... reading from a local disk) that masks what is actually happening behind the scenes. It will always be less reliable.

Answer in that specific situation: They were files in a OneDrive that no longer existed after a tenant migration (they hired a consulting company that seemed to bungle things).

Using Windows 11 is, for me personally, absolutely brutal. The defaults feel anti user. An example in the form of an issue I encountered recently: if you have an OS that fails to boot, and you had files on demand enabled in directories backed up with one drive, the files are totally inaccessible on the local disk, even if you had them "synced".

It seems like retrieving files from my SSD should be a basic function of a general purpose OS, but they've gone and bungled it in order to push dependence on their cloud services.

I've wanted a mortar and mortar munitions for as long as I can remember, but you can't own army surplus as it's a "destructive device" which is bullshit if I've ever heard it.

>The Pentagon stated that the Harrier Jet would not be sold to civilians without "demilitarization", which, in the case of the Harrier, would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off vertically.[10]

Thank you Pentagon,very lame!