bendbro

27 ms·

241.
by bendbro 6y ago
Words have power [1]. The power to help and the power to harm. And in the age of social media, that power is magnified more than ever before [2]. So while the intent of the comment may have been to improve our shared world, that doesn'
242.
by bendbro 6y ago
Ha, my cold dead hands
243.
by bendbro 6y ago
Bikes really should have their own lanes, just like cars and pedestrians effectively do. I hit a cyclist once, breaking his shoulder and collapsing the windshield and roof of my car. I was driving on a three lane, 45 mph road in the middle
244.
by bendbro 6y ago
If corporations can't discriminate in hiring due to an American principle of anti-racism, then we can also prevent corporations from discriminating in speech on an American principle of free speech.
245.
by bendbro 6y ago
> 1. Americans need to buy and hold equities. Period. When Google cuts costs or makes more money, I benefit as a shareholder (or you can hold total market indexes and the like). Yes, but it is not good that your "compensation"
246.
by bendbro 6y ago
> bans Ironic given the context > redemption I'm actually in the confession booth right now, so consider my sins redeemed! In seriousness, what do you find so horrible about this post? I thought it was fun.
247.
by bendbro 6y ago
Also binged with the gf. We found it enjoyable in a way similar to that of Girls: the protaganist is loathsome due to their narcissistic portrayal, and incredibly naive. This makes it enjoyable as you find yourself rooting against them and
248.
by bendbro 6y ago
I think this argument can also be extended to cloud services, where the "OOP interface" analog is the CRUD site, queue, or other more horrible infrastructure used to give access from a client to a service. > not bs domain stuff
249.
by bendbro 6y ago
Alternatively we could have people understand all certificates, regardless of expiration, are high security. Is there any reason someone would want to publicize an expired certificate? Additionally, I can think of a few existing reasons so
250.
by bendbro 6y ago
But how do we know that the root comment had not already succumbed to Poe's Law?
251.
by bendbro 6y ago
I've always been uncomfortable with these kinds of ideas. The odds that the idea will be correctly applied is heavily tied to intelligence, culture, and situation. Instead of reducing the space of options you must consider, all it says
252.
by bendbro 6y ago
That is comforting. I will research this. [Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will ena
253.
by bendbro 6y ago
I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point. 1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any c
254.
by bendbro 6y ago
I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn
255.
by bendbro 6y ago
Personally, I am just tired of holding my tongue and I love to argue when I feel something is untrue. I don't like Trump.
256.
by bendbro 6y ago
They absolutely should. What makes this arrest unconstitutional? [edit] read more of the twitter thread. It is speculative. If the speculation is proven then I agree the federal police were wrong in this instance.
257.
by bendbro 6y ago
I partially agree. I think it is definitely an authoritarian show of force, but I believe it is accountable, as the outcome of the arrested should be public record. And as an accountable, authoritarian show of force, they are working as int
258.
by bendbro 6y ago
> Complete lie?? No. The protests have been mostly peaceful with a few small incidents. See my comment in the sibling thread. The protests have been composed of both violent and peaceful members. While peaceful protestors far outnumber v
259.
by bendbro 6y ago
Good point. I will fill those gaps. June 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th all had violence from some protestors or unlawful assemblies declared by Portland police, according to this timeline which cites from primary sources: https:&#x
260.
by bendbro 6y ago
I would probably resist and get beaten up a bit more by the officers. And then I would be hauled away to jail, read my rights and interrogated, and later have my day in court. Justice is served. That said, what is and isn't a crime, an
261.
by bendbro 6y ago
The very first line of what the NYT wrote is a complete lie: "Peaceful protests were already happening for weeks when federal officers arrived on July 4. Our video shows how President Trump’s deployment ignited chaos." May 31st: L
262.
by bendbro 6y ago
The rioters had begun vandalizing, looting, breaking in and setting fire to buildings directly adjacent to the federal courthouse before federal agents arrived to protect the courthouse. Active defense of the courthouse seems justified, and
263.
by bendbro 6y ago
I totally agree that officers should better identify themselves. But I disagree that the actions of federal officers can be conflated with "tyranny", "atrocities", "overreach", "abduction", and "
264.
by bendbro 6y ago
> atrocities Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
265.
by bendbro 6y ago
And the red square is federal property that is the jurisdiction of federal officers. Protestors broke into and set fire to the adjacent courthouse, in addition to vandalizing and looting nearby buildings, so federal officers were sent to de
266.
by bendbro 6y ago
You are backed by evidence. Why does the news, who is supposed to tell truth, lie? May 31st: Looting and fire at Justice Center, adjacent to federal courthouse: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?i
267.
by bendbro 6y ago
Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "ex
268.
by bendbro 6y ago
It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it
269.
by bendbro 6y ago
Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, t
270.
by bendbro 6y ago
I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.

More ›