Slashdot Mirror

Haven't you done any line dancing?

A propos ...>>>...

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide.

For certain. Too many people seem to have the Television concept of murder or suicide. one shot, and immediate death. And of course, if you do it Bud Dwyer style, it probably will be immediate. But lots of peopleshoot themselves, and don't die until they bleed to. Which takes a little while plenty of time to nil yourself again.

But the biggest question of all for the kooks is how thise people can be so clever to kill so many people yet use such whacked and suspicious methods that just so happen to make them look very, very suspicious but otherwise have managed to kill 50 people by now. And not one of their paid assassins they use to dispatch anyone that agrees with them has ever came forth. Such a combination of skill, dumbfuckery and incredible conspiratorial luck has never been seen before.

Anyhow, the kooks should get back to proving the moon landings never happened, or thatSomething is wrong with the Earth's core. Booms, sounds, massive bird deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thank gawd that a brave whistleblower stood up to the corrupt Government to let us know? Wake up America, the end is nigh!

For more of the truth being hidden from us https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Awww, what the heck here is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide.

For certain. Too many people seem to have the Television concept of murder or suicide. one shot, and immediate death. And of course, if you do it Bud Dwyer style, it probably will be immediate. But lots of peopleshoot themselves, and don't die until they bleed to. Which takes a little while plenty of time to nil yourself again.

But the biggest question of all for the kooks is how thise people can be so clever to kill so many people yet use such whacked and suspicious methods that just so happen to make them look very, very suspicious but otherwise have managed to kill 50 people by now. And not one of their paid assassins they use to dispatch anyone that agrees with them has ever came forth. Such a combination of skill, dumbfuckery and incredible conspiratorial luck has never been seen before.

Anyhow, the kooks should get back to proving the moon landings never happened, or thatSomething is wrong with the Earth's core. Booms, sounds, massive bird deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thank gawd that a brave whistleblower stood up to the corrupt Government to let us know? Wake up America, the end is nigh!

For more of the truth being hidden from us https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Awww, what the heck here is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide.

For certain. Too many people seem to have the Television concept of murder or suicide. one shot, and immediate death. And of course, if you do it Bud Dwyer style, it probably will be immediate. But lots of peopleshoot themselves, and don't die until they bleed to. Which takes a little while plenty of time to nil yourself again.

But the biggest question of all for the kooks is how thise people can be so clever to kill so many people yet use such whacked and suspicious methods that just so happen to make them look very, very suspicious but otherwise have managed to kill 50 people by now. And not one of their paid assassins they use to dispatch anyone that agrees with them has ever came forth. Such a combination of skill, dumbfuckery and incredible conspiratorial luck has never been seen before.

Anyhow, the kooks should get back to proving the moon landings never happened, or thatSomething is wrong with the Earth's core. Booms, sounds, massive bird deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thank gawd that a brave whistleblower stood up to the corrupt Government to let us know? Wake up America, the end is nigh!

For more of the truth being hidden from us https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Awww, what the heck here is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I just hit the magic Logan's Run of 40 in IT, and I hate getting lumped in with the Bobs

Then your resume should reflect it. Companies are hiring 40+ year olds all the time. My contract company has 4 open jobs that are all in the realm of 40+ year olds. When there was a recent down turn all of the 'entry level' positions were the ones that got cut.

If you stood on a table at a job fair and shouted those 4 terms recruiters would be coming to you.

Here's what they are:

- Simulink. Simulink is a graphical programming language. https://www.date-conference.co...

There is a huge need for programmers that understand both Simulink AND C (so you can debug the toolchain). In addition there is a completely unknown MATHWORKS language called TLC that only a handful of people know and can master (or so it seems): https://stackoverflow.com/ques... You need to know TLC to make device drivers for Simulink. I started making my own for Arduino/NilRTOS/FreeRTOS but got hung up with something else. Learn TLC.

- RTOS - I hope no explanation needed. All automotive controllers are running one of some sort. All of them are closed source. See also: WindRiver. Get familiar with an opensource RTOS and RTOS concepts.

- dSpace. dSpace is unit testing for the physical world. When companies need to test how software is going to work they can't always do it on the hardware itself. When a modern car is put into 'drive' a the CAN message that tells the transmission computer to go into drive is sent. (Get familiar with CAN as well).

A lot of decent tutorials out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Unfortunately they're stuck on Python 2.7 which is the only reason I have to still deal with it. I'm sure there are a lot of companies out there looking for people that can automate the automation tools.

  It's programmed through Simulink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

- OSEK. [Offene Systeme und deren Schnittstellen für die Elektronik in Kraftfahrzeugen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSEK). Literally "Open Systems and their Interfaces for the Electronics in Motor Vehicles".

I hear VW might be looking for some. Every other automotive manufacturer is.

The trick is to do both cutting edge and legacy and avoid doing anything in the middle. I'd imagine the guy that knows COBOL and Python3 very well isn't going to have a problem with unemployment.

Put those on your Resume. Put it on linked in and wait. I deleted my linked in because I got tired of dealing with poaching head hunters. I talked about it at work and multiple of my co-workers get the same things.

I just hit the magic Logan's Run of 40 in IT, and I hate getting lumped in with the Bobs

Then your resume should reflect it. Companies are hiring 40+ year olds all the time. My contract company has 4 open jobs that are all in the realm of 40+ year olds. When there was a recent down turn all of the 'entry level' positions were the ones that got cut.

If you stood on a table at a job fair and shouted those 4 terms recruiters would be coming to you.

Here's what they are:

- Simulink. Simulink is a graphical programming language. https://www.date-conference.co...

There is a huge need for programmers that understand both Simulink AND C (so you can debug the toolchain). In addition there is a completely unknown MATHWORKS language called TLC that only a handful of people know and can master (or so it seems): https://stackoverflow.com/ques... You need to know TLC to make device drivers for Simulink. I started making my own for Arduino/NilRTOS/FreeRTOS but got hung up with something else. Learn TLC.

- RTOS - I hope no explanation needed. All automotive controllers are running one of some sort. All of them are closed source. See also: WindRiver. Get familiar with an opensource RTOS and RTOS concepts.

- dSpace. dSpace is unit testing for the physical world. When companies need to test how software is going to work they can't always do it on the hardware itself. When a modern car is put into 'drive' a the CAN message that tells the transmission computer to go into drive is sent. (Get familiar with CAN as well).

A lot of decent tutorials out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Unfortunately they're stuck on Python 2.7 which is the only reason I have to still deal with it. I'm sure there are a lot of companies out there looking for people that can automate the automation tools.

  It's programmed through Simulink. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

- OSEK. [Offene Systeme und deren Schnittstellen für die Elektronik in Kraftfahrzeugen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSEK). Literally "Open Systems and their Interfaces for the Electronics in Motor Vehicles".

I hear VW might be looking for some. Every other automotive manufacturer is.

The trick is to do both cutting edge and legacy and avoid doing anything in the middle. I'd imagine the guy that knows COBOL and Python3 very well isn't going to have a problem with unemployment.

Put those on your Resume. Put it on linked in and wait. I deleted my linked in because I got tired of dealing with poaching head hunters. I talked about it at work and multiple of my co-workers get the same things.

Radio waves wobble but the networks don't fall down.

In the 5G future, Weebles deliver your mail.

This election is surreal. On the one hand, we have Hitler. On the other hand, we have a murderer who takes orders from satan himself.

Neither of these things is remotely close to real. Donald Trump is a dork, and Hillary Clinton is an awkward idealist who's been jaded somewhat by bumping into life. Neither one will destroy the country. Neither one will be Hitler.

After muddling through another 4-8 years, the country will have another election where we hear that it's again Hitler against the antichrist, and somehow people will believe again that it might actually be true.

Looks like Hillary's strategy is to blame Russia.

And people are stupid enough to fall for it, rather than bother thinking about the content of the information.

The content of the emails is actual news. I don't think Murica's interested in facts and newsy-type-stuff any more. They'd rather listen to Clinton vs. Trump. We need a new candidate, one who's a pro-wrestler and a porn star. Vote for Dwayne Alozando Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for president - F*CK YEAH! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You do realize that by drawing that hasty (and false) equivalency you're arguing that the problem with iPhone 4 not working properly if "held wrong" or without a "bumper" or a piece of tape over the antenna - was a "human beings" and "human nature" problem?
Not the fact that it was a bad design, not present in past or future versions of the phone.

I.e. That people really WERE holding it wrong.

Cause in every case of Tesla crashes so far - that was exactly the case. They WERE using it wrong.
While ignoring repeated warnings.

Except the ones that turn out to be crazy conspiracy theories... like all the people the Clintons supposedly murdered. Nobody can prove that the Bush Justice Department wasn't in on the coverup -- which of course it would have to be.

We live in the era when people feel entitled to their own facts if their feelings tell them those things are true. Once an attention-whore like Assange achieves notoriety he can dine out for the rest of his life on bullshit.

So RF5961 turns a pesky annoyance bug into a bug where its possible to determine who's connecting to a particular website

Well what's the big deal? NextGenHacker101 showed us how to do that back in 2008!

I came here to say exactly this!
The fatal accident in Florida I can by the excuse of weird contrast situation for the camera in conjunction with speed above the limit and the truck starting crossing without proper distance to incoming traffic, but there is a video of the crash and it was in great light conditions, at low speed, with the other vehicle stopped (and with proper warning signals) and with enough space to all sides! That's exactly the kind of situation a assistance system should have avoided!!!
If I was driving with the autonomous system on, with attention to the traffic and my hand on the wheel I WOULDN'T have moved my hand, because I would be sure a system like this would avoid the other car, and I completely agree with the owner bashing Tesla because they advertised it as being the best thing since sliced bread and now are back paddling saying that it is his fault for not having his hands at the wheel... totally "hold it wrong" moment for Tesla here.
Looking at the video what seemed to have happened is that the autonomous system decided that keeping inside the lane was more important even if there was not enough space, or it just did a bad calculation and "thought" that it had clearance.

I think this does more than anything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

From my understanding of driving conditions in China, it would take a pretty miraculous AI to prevent accidents there.

Not really. The rules in China are different, but probably simpler. Just slow down as you approach an intersection, ease into it, and slow down some more if you are going to collide with someone, turning a little to the left or right as you do so. If you watch the video you linked to, all the vehicles are using this simple algorithm. I lived in China for several years, and found it quite easy to adapt to their driving style. I had more difficulty adapting back to American style driving when I returned home. Americans go so fast.

It seems as though these driving assists and self-driving cars are going to have to be region-specific.

Definitely.

From my understanding of driving conditions in China, it would take a pretty miraculous AI to prevent accidents there. It seems as though these driving assists and self-driving cars are going to have to be region-specific.

• "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?
• "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"
• "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Everything tastes great when it sits on a Ritz. Mmmmm. Good cracker. Good cracker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

However, publishing source code allows hackers to find the vulnerabilities more easily than guessing them with closed source software. Open source software is inherently insecure and closed source offers far greater security.

Ahhh yes, the unbreakable security of obscurity.
Do you publish a newsletter by any chance?

Pretty soon Apple will end up like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Because after all you can never be too thin and too rich.

Indeed, as the Angry Video Game Nerd points out, they could get really bad sometimes.

There was a scene in the trailer for Antitrust (2001) where Rachel Leigh Cook is in a bedroom scene with Ryan Phillipe. It never occurs in the movie.

Obligatory JIra Jr:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"Are we doing any usability testing?"

"No time!"

This is an interesting point. However, when most people say "population growth", what they really mean is GEOMETRIC growth -- meaning that the population is growing by an exponential function.

The late, great Professor Al Bartlett's arguments in Arithmetic, Population and Energy -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?... -- are assuming that population grows at an exponential rate, not something slower.

If it could be shown that the population was growing linearly, or even polynomially, over a long period of time, we would have significantly less cause for concern. However, if the population growth's fastest term is still exponential, it doesn't matter whether it's "decelerating", we still have the problem.

Consider three different population growth functions where each whole number of `x` is 1 year:

C = 100000 (starting pool of people = 100,000)

L(x) = 1000x + C // Linear growth

Q(x) = 400x^2 + C // Quadratic growth

E(x) = C*(1 + 0.0113)^x // Exponential growth -- let's set r = 0.0113, the current estimated world population growth rate, 1.13% per year

So if x = 1 (10 years from now):

L(1) = 1000 + 100000 = 101000.

Q(1) = 400 + 100000 = 100400.

E(1) = 100000 * 1.0113 = 101130.

So far these are relatively close, but let's look at 50 years...

x = 50:

L(50) = 50000 + 100000 = 150000.

Q(50) = 1000000 + 100000 = 1,100,000.

E(50) = 100000 * (1.0113)^50 = 175388.

Quadratic jumps way ahead here, but even though I set a fairly aggressive coefficient for the quadratic, the exponential wins out in the end...

Let's say x = 500...

L(500) = 500000 + 100000 = 600000.

Q(500) = 100,000,000 + 100000 = 100,100,000.

E(500) = 100000 * (1.0113)^500 = 27,542,516.

Nope, quadratic still wins.

x = 1000?

L(1000) = 1,000,000 + 100000 = 1,100,000.

Q(1000) = 400,000,000 + 100000 = 400,100,000.

E(1000) = 100000 * (1.0113)^1000 = 7,585,902,222.

So yeah, after just 1000 years of a very slow exponential growth, it completely trounces the extremely fast-growing quadratic.

So we need to stop looking at population figures in terms of derivatives and acceleration in the traditional sense, because historically the growth has always best been described by an exponential function, not by a polynomial. Unless we have somehow fundamentally changed our ways to stop the exponential growth, everything Al Bartlett says in his video is 100% true, even if the rate, r, in the growth function is decreasing (hint: it's not decreasing fast enough to matter).

or the remote just stops working

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

China can do lots of things. For their sake, comparing the size of their dicks should not be one of them. However they do seem to be trying to compensate in other ways. Why can't they just buy a muscle car?

you forget all the problems with wind.
here is a videos compilation of one of the most obvious ones (from all over the place, remember this is few of the many many videos of available and remember that not most of such are recorded in video ).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

At least get your facts straight. Flash ran Unreal Engine years before HTML5, when Adobe introduced support for Stage3D in 2011. And Unity3D were working on a Flash export option the other year, which worked better than the WebGL option does now. But they canned the option when Adobe stopped supporting Flash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And I know it became popular to hate on plug-ins -- because walled-gardens don't like them(I'll probably get modded down for speaking the truth...), but Unitiy's plug-in playback is hands down superior to the WebGL export option. With the plug-in, all of the same desktop 3D features are supported. It's MUCH faster, works on much older and slower hardware, a wider range of hardware, and it looks noticeably better...

With the Unity3D WebGL export, it's still missing features, it requires a higher end PC to run good, it looks like shit when it comes to shadowing -- even on the highest export settings, and is pretty much unusable on mobile devices -- which going back go Flash, AIR( you probably don't know what this is? ) runs great even on a first get iPad. And the WebGL export's performance/features are inconsistent from system to system, browser to browser.

HTML5(Its adopted parts...) is finally getting good because of modern browser, but it's not yet finished, which is why someone said it's the FUTURE! So don't kid yourself on how awesome it is just yet, that won't come until HTML6!!!

The day they find yoga mats are carcinogenic will be the happiest day in my life. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

I always like watching the trailer AFTER watching the movie, to see how different they are.)

You'll enjoy this (if you haven't already seen it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't care if he didn't have access to classified intelligence.

So you care more about the storyline than the facts or accountability?

He supported it in 2003-2005.

And why might that be. You only had both parties and the entire establishment media supporting the invasion - shocking development that most Americans also supported the war, given that they weren't privy to the actual intelligence briefings.

Who was privy? Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, yeah, having access to information the common citizen did not does matter. And of course, Trump's 2003 support for the Iraq War made no difference in the invasion - as opposed to the yea vote from a U.S. Senator. And yeah, if Trump had been the one in office at the time while Hillary was a private citizen, the same rules would apply to Trump in her place.

I mean, I guess it would be nice if we elected a president who opposed the war at the time... but after 8 years of a president like that, would we even care about that issue?

We shouldn't care about the possibility of another warmongering fool getting thousands more Americans killed, and between one and two million people getting killed in more illegal wars?

Also, I have no idea why you think Iraq was anything like Syria or Libya.

How were they not like Iraq? Big Ebul Dictator needs to be overthrown and his country made safe for democracy, because he was abusing his own people, clamped down on civil rights, was a threat to his neighbors, blah blah blah. The fake concern over WMD's was copied straight from the Iraq playbook to Syria. Want to say the lack of boots (special forces use moccasins, not boots) and a long occupation makes those two regional instabilities too different from Iraq? Okay....but you know who really wanted boots on the ground in Syria, right?

HRC.

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

As I said, it's only a matter of scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Better not show this fan any Alfred Hitchcock trailers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

> My personal best was 37 minutes before I finally let the guy know I was stringing him along.

There is an app for that.

Here are a bunch of recordings of it in action:
https://www.youtube.com/channe...

Now for some educational programming because you should know when it's less or it's fewer like people who were never raised in a sewer.

A better reference:

The Matrix - virus scene

Yeah, but f-35 is really a new version of the "Bradley Fighting Vehicle" pork money ...

the Petnagon wars

A Public Enemy quote on /.? I'm floored. Given the general opinion on /. for black radicals (and how "old" PE is at this point), this is one of the last places I'd expect to see something like that.

.... the human mind didn't evolve to make rational decisions, especially not regarding technology. Technically any literate person would not want to license cultural works like games, the source code for videogames should theoretically be held by a library in escrow and copyright terms should never be beyond the lifetime of the game (5-10 years) so that it goes public domain. The whole of IP law is corrupt and the masses are too ignorant and illiterate to defend themselves because human mind simply doesn't work on rationality as the enlightenment thought.

See the science:

Enlightenment ideas regarding human reasoning are incorrect

More "intelligent" (perhaps more aware is a better term?) people tends to realize things existentially. They tend to ask questions like "what is the point of this task?" as well as many other things. When they really consider the possible rational, logical answers to these questions, they arrive at interesting conclusions some of which erode their motivation to do certain things but spark their interest in things that are more purposeful.

A great example is Alan Watts in his famous talk "Life is a Hoax": https://www.youtube.com/watch?.... It is absolutely amazing that he talks about this in the 70's and it's still pretty accurate all the way to the present day, at least from an American perspective.

Unfortunately, many of the tasks society demands of us are very much inefficient, nearly pointless, a waste of one's time and energy or are not clearly connected with a motivating purpose. The person who is interested in doing "interesting" things, usually involving more usage of ye old cranium, tend to gravitate towards things that aren't of interest to the majority of society.

The less intelligent/aware people on the other hand, they can be convinced to be motivated by things that just aren't even remotely true but may appeal to a more primitive or emotional side of them. These people tend to lack the cognitive skills especially critical thinking to be able to do the categorization effectively. They are the "oooh shiny" people or the people that think by working hard doing menial tasks they are going to score points in the afterlife with the deity they pray to at their local mythological worship center each week. On an intellectual level, you might find these people rather annoying with their inconsistent, irrational thoughts running around in their minds but I see them as a blessing. Because they are ignorant and willing to do things that no rational, reasonably intelligent human being would ever do, that creates a pocket of society for the more intellectual people to do their thing. If intellectual things were as popular as cleavage on celebrity magazines then there would be fierce competition over who gets the opportunity to have intellectual pursuits.

From context, I'm guessing it means this.

... well, either that, or radioactive sheep.

Your locksmith was incorrect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But his incorrect information did allow him to charge you for drilling out your old lock and sell you a new one.

Just ask them to apologise.

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

Rolls Royce pickups are actually a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...