Maybe this freak should just text uncle steve whatever he wanted, or a “call me when it’s convinient” message, and then steve will probably see the notification at some point in his morning routine before too long. If this guy really needed to call steve anyways, for whatever reason, he shouldn’t care about time zones, because it’s an emergency.

If you were commonly calling whatever place you were calling, you’d probably be able to intuit what time they woke up anyways, so it’s all moot.

I dunno. I think it’s pretty easy to make a big deal out of time zones and calendar measurements and whatever but I don’t think it really, actually matters that much, because the main thing they facilitate is communication. Time zones and timelines should be engineered more around the human condition, I think, than around anything else.

But then, I think, to construct anything around the human condition is kind of paradoxical. If you create a schedule, then you have created a schedule. I.e. if you construct time, then you imply the existence of something that needs to be measured. That implies deadlines.

Frankly, that’s too much pressure for me, so I’m going to take the more controversial stance here: Abolish time. No more time, no more numbers measuring when I should do what. You’re either gonna tell me whether or not to do something now, or to do it later. The people gotta learn that time is more subjective and contingent, and they gotta start showing up to their work shifts whenever they want to make money, instead of just showing up at a given time when the fuckin steam whistle goes off like it’s the 1800s.

Always wondered why those aluminum bottles I see sometimes with screw on tops are so rare, I feel like they should be used way more. Recyclability of an aluminum can, convenience and form factor of a bottle.

Damn, this place just kinda is reddit 2.0, huh? You’re still gonna get the same fundamental person posting something to the wrong board, ragebait, to quick kind of snippit, to misunderstanding kind of cycle. If you post any, small or large, fraction of your worldview, you will inevitably get someone taking it out of context, misunderstanding it, or extrapolating off of it, substituting their own worldview for yours because you didn’t provide your entire worldview in an entire reddit comment that they could just kind of piecemeal respond to one by one rather than kind of comprehending it as a whole and then actually responding to it. Regardless of whether or not you provide all of it, even, people consume it piecemeal, they’re incapable of doing otherwise.

My brain is so fried, I fuckin hate the internet so much. Do we want to change this outcome, or is this outcome actually good? I don’t fucking know, google probably don’t know either. If you hit me with the 50/50 abuse stats, cause the men don’t report abuse, then I can hit you with the oh well men are more capable of like causing financial or physical harm with their abuse because of power dynamic. And then you can hit me with oh well that’s kind of a fucked up collectivist analysis to refer to this that way because that’s evaluating every group as a whole, and also that might not be correct even. And then I’m gonna hit you with the oh well I thought we were prescribing a collective top down kind of solution based on this bifurcation here. And then you’re gonna be like, oh, well, I thought you were kind of saying that men just don’t deserve help in these circumstances because that’s what your position was advocating for. And then I’m gonna be like nah not really but I can kinda see where you were coming from because the post is about how like oh this is an unreasonable decision and I’m saying well hold up maybe it’s reasonable.

This is a false dichotomy, is what I think. There are no real trolley problems. Nobody’s help has to come at someone else’s expense. There are only mutually beneficial solutions. Other solutions aren’t real solutions on the basis that they are harmful. I have to believe this or else everything kind of falls apart. I dunno, maybe you believe there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, like that libbed up POS thomas sowell.

I dunno, could we not just, probably figure out the gender of the person making this google search, and tailor their results, like we do for fucking everything else? Could we not probably just expect that if people need marriage counseling, or need some sort of domestic abuse hotline, they’ll search “marriage counseling”, or “domestic abuse help”, or something like that? Can we maybe think that, I dunno, if someone is having a major episode with domestic abuse, maybe the police should be able to help them with that, maybe their support network should be able to help them with that, maybe google shouldn’t be the thing that’s expected to solve all their problems?

But then, if I say all that, make those points, then oh, I’m living in fairy land, and my solutions are unrealistic, and it’s easier to try to ask a theoretical google search engine programmer to fix this very minor problem that is realistically just a kind of band-aid on the buckling crack on the face of the hoover dam. Every fuckin thing affects every other fuckin thing. You ask me about this minor thing, and instead of talking about this minor thing, we gotta blow it up into how life sucks for men and shit cause they can’t report domestic abuse, and that’s just one facet of how men are getting fucked up by everything. I dunno man! I dunno how to solve that! Gender inequality! Can’t we just hit the big red button that says “solve gender inequality” and that will immediately solve everything, obviously, right? Like c’mon, it’s so easy, obviously.

This kinda shit is just annoying cause it feels like nobody has a really good framework for filing this kinda shit away. Oh, yeah, men have problems with overly sealing their emotions, cause we can just kinda, broadly gesture towards patriarchy on that one, and then kind of just provide reasons for why patriarchy exists, and then kind of extrapolate based on that shared establishing on the problem, into what some possible solutions might be. Like instead we’re just gonna spend a million eons debating whether or not patriarchy exists in the first place for the same reason that everyone can call some shit woke, and then two people hear two wildly different things even though the word might have the same literal meaning.

I say patriarchy, one person hears “oh the institution that kind of benefits all men broadly” and one person hears “oh the bullshit idea that there’s an institution that benefits all men broadly”. I’m like what are we talking about, do I have to get into pay gaps, and then I have to get into specific studies on specific pay gaps, and then as we kind of dynamically litigate this argument it’s going to kind of come about that oops this study has problems, dismissed, oops this other study also has problems, dismissed, forever on, eternally, and therefore, my perspective is right, instead of us all just kind of admitting we don’t know shit and then kind of like turning it back to, well, what would be the best thing to do in absence of clear evidence one way or the other?

I dunno man, I have internet brainworms and the peanut gallery is living in my brain rent free. I’m just tired that everything has to be an argument and not an actual conversation where people are asking curious questions in good faith. Welcome to life, though. Don’t let the doctor slap your ass on the way out the birth canal or whatever.

I think it tends to be from a certain kind of framing of abuse, a certain kind of mentality. It’s the same one that has the reaction to cyberbulling of “oh, you should just log off”, type of thing. It’s an oversimplification that basically only conceives of abuse as being as a result from a kind of strictly physical and obvious power imbalance, rather than thinking of abuse as being a more complicated psychological phenomena. You don’t even need a scenario in which a woman is like, trained by bruce lee, or anything, you just need an idea that women are capable of somewhat basic psychological manipulation, and you maybe need a man that’s vulnerable to it.

what if we just put them all on an island and then blew it up immediately

None of the idiots who brag about driving a semi have done any of that either.

That’s definitely not true. People can still have a self-image as a kind of asshole truck driver, and also still use their truck. People make this argument, that somehow these kind of aesthetic qualities have some sort of bearing on who does or doesn’t use their truck, and to me, it just kind of comes across like the only people who are allowed to drive trucks are the people who are acting in socially acceptable ways.

The argument is less about the people who use their truck, and more about the relative frequencies of use for everyone generally. Most people would be better covered by a rental. And then we could also make the argument that our development patterns would encourage the use of trucks far too much anyways.

Edit: wait, did you mean to type semi, or hemi? I kind of assumed hemi, but if you mean semi that kind of changes everything and I don’t know how to respond to that.

I don’t really know if any of that holds true if I already have the game in my possession. Maybe if it was theoretically the case that future software was harder to pirate for some additional drm insanity, but then the neat thing is that games that are just released are harder to pirate and tend to never be on sale, so that’s a kind of automatic balance. Also

There is also the fact that others see you using it and are encouraged to not using alternatives.

what do you mean by “alternatives”? alternatives to piracy? alternatives to the games people want to play?

If you even use the software you are supporting them.

How?