You know what? Screw that. It's a tangent. Congratulations on distracting me with irrelevancies. Even if, EVEN IF every single instance of regulation had been captured in the past, it would not mean that regulation is a bad idea. It would just mean that we need to find a way to stop regulatory capture, whatever it takes. No regulation means the strong prey upon the weak, and I will have no part of that.
I think you've seen that we have more than five senses, including one I like to call the sense of justice. It is a feeling, and like all feelings it operates very quickly and imposes powerful consequences on the body and mind. It has developed because having it is advantageous to us as a species, it makes us better cooperators. Genetically speaking, being a true parasite or sociopath is a very small minority strategy. It works, sometimes. Mostly, though, our sense of justice makes us willing to risk our own lives to deter or kill a known parasite. And that makes being a parasite a minority strategy, which is better for the species overall.
In general, I feel the same way as you do. I think most people do. But I was born with a stronger empathy than most, and unlike most men, never had it beaten out of me. Having to feel what people around me feel, having to feel even what people I don't like feel, is difficult sometimes. Sure, I can hate on people, but I'm always conflicted in that hate. And anyway, I try to stretch my sense of empathy to encompass even people like, oh, Hitler. Anyone, really. Bum on the street, serial killer. Everyone. Empathy helps us understand things, and some things need to be understood well to be destroyed fully.
Let me ask you, do you submit to the law in regards to suppressing your urge to punish others because you fear punishment, or because you know it is the right thing to do? We have laws for a reason, do you agree with that reason? Do you follow all laws that may result in a punishment? Do you jaywalk or speed?
We suppress the urge to punish others because we do not have all the facts, and because they may still be of use to us. We may punish unjustly, having a fair court try to figure out the truth helps prevent that. And we may punish too harshly, and then find ourselves needing an ally we no longer have. Ideally, punishment should be shunning, we no longer have to deal with you, go somewhere else, if you try to hang around here, we'll hit you with rocks and sticks. Now, since there's no place left to go, really, I believe we are obliged to provide prisons. Because people do change, they can learn from their mistakes, most of them. And the ones that can't learn, well, keep them around locked up in case we get attacked, we can sick all our sociopaths on the enemy.
So, you know, there are logical reasons for doing the things we do. There are reasons beyond fear of punishment for not acting immediately on our sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and evil. Reasons that relate directly to genetic fitness and passing on some subset of one's genes. So yeah, we have this feeling of fairness, this sense of justice, but we also have those other feelings like love and forgiveness and empathy to balance it out. And overall, we have our conscious minds, capable of logical thoughts. Totally capable of making pretty good models of the self and the world, and eventually figuring out some reasons why we have the feelings we do, yet do things the way we do in society.
But those little models aren't the world, and they aren't the self. We rarely use our logic to do anything. Mostly, we do whatever we feel like and use our logic to make up stories after. So I guess its a good thing most of us have feelings like you do, and would not act the same in all circumstances. For instance, I bet if you were in a situation outside of society, say stranded someplace, or societal collapse, or whatever, and you witnessed injustice, you would take no small risk in attempting to correct it. That makes you, and most people, good people in my book.
You are clueless, and I am engaging in ad hominems becaue you are clueless and absolutely insensitive to the financial plight of the average person, as well as being arrogant and claiming to know something about which you demonstrably know nothing, namely finances and economics. I have absolutely no respect for you, and will not pretend otherwise. You are obviously parroting back things you heard and vaguely remember, and have no real life experience with.
The average home price in America is around $160,000 right now. The median family wealth in America is around $120,000 right now. We are in a recession. While stocks (which 90% of people own next to none of, even including their 401ks) have rebounded, home prices have gone down. YOU FUCKING FIGURE IT OUT, you insufferable turd.
I bank at a credit union. As they take NO profit, distributing any surplus back to members, I have no reason to believe they would steer me wrong. Asshole.
You haven't kept up to date on the dropping price of solar, and the rising price of anything non-renewable. Solar is a much more economical prospect nowadays. Have you been asleep for the past ten years?
Funny, the native Athabaskans felt the same way when white men named it McKinley despite the fact that it was called Denali before conquering invaders ever saw it. But I suppose that you feel the winners get to make the names, eh? In that case, I guess the Athabaskans must have won, because it's called Denali now.
This is nothing at all like a major landmark being renamed by a megacorporation. In fact, renaming Denali to McKinley is akin to renaming the Sears Tower to Willis Tower. Changing McKinley back to Denali would be like changing Willis Tower back to Sears Tower.
When would you guess broadcast radio will die? Movie theaters? Opera? Plays? Perhaps I phrased things wrong. Saying that cassettes obsolesced eight tracks is the same as saying that HD TV obsolesced regular TV. True, but not very meaningful in this context.
By your definition, books are just a broadcast medium for text, and plays and movies both are just a broadcast medium for acting. Internal logical inconsistencies in your basic premise, impressive.
Incremental improvements in media sometimes kill off older versions of that media, thus, the cassette tape killed off 8 track and CDs have mostly killed off the cassette tape. But this is like saying that paper books killed off papyrus scrolls. The underlying media is "writing" which hasn't died yet. In your example, the underlying media is "portable recording" and you will note that even with hand portable Internet connected listening devices, portable recordings are still around.
Where is your proof of this? You do realize that anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? Consider your opinion dismissed until you cite a valid source backing up your ludicrous claims.
If you couldn't go to prison for crimes, wouldn't you do things a wee bit differently?;-)
No. I wouldn't. I'm not a sociopath. I don't refrain from doing evil because of a fear of punishment. I refrain from doing evil because I have empathy, and because of that, hurting others hurts me directly. It may also harm me indirectly, as people who have been hurt often lash out irrationally, and people whose choices have been constrained often make choices that harm others, potentially including me. Enlightened self interest looks a lot like selflessness .
Please provide evidence that TV is a dying medium. And "shrinking" does not mean "dying." While you are at it, please explain the death of books, plays, radio, and movies. No newer media has ever killed older media.
England. France. Germany. There's three, now you show me one case where regulatory capture increased in a society that limits the influence of wealth over politics. If your wealthiest individual can not afford the bribes necessary to effect regulatory capture, it will not happen. Another factor is our first past the post voting system. In parliamentary systems, and Condorcet type systems, no vote is really "wasted" and so people do not have to pick the lesser of two evils.
If you know that prices are not the same, why would you consider a straight comparison of income fair? "Will cause" is not "has caused."
Regardless, having that much of your net worth tied up in your house is never a good idea.
Dude, you are a fucking idiot, or an asshole, or the clueless scion of an ultra rich family. Who can afford to own a house while having an equal or greater amount of wealth in more liquid assets? Who even thinks that is a good idea? You misunderstand basic finance. Having recently inherited a house and the proceeds of a large life insurance policy, I sought advice from professionals. Even though I already know quite a bit, and have a credit rating of 812. I had $100,000 in cash from the insurance, and $50,000 in equity on a $188,000 house. What do you think these professionals advised me to do? Put most of the money into the house, save enough for a six month to a year cushion. That puts my monthly house, tax and insurance payments at $730 total, so I can save a huge amount of my income. I KNOW for a FACT that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, so I will thank you to shut the hell up before you confuse someone who doesn't realize how idiotic your advice is.
No, you do that. I favor government policy that counters the outrageous power the ultra rich have over politics. The answer to regulatory capture is not fewer regulations, it is less regulatory capture. One good way to keep money out of politics is to take it away from the ultra rich. Let's have a 90% marginal tax rate on a billion dollar income. Adam Smith noted that free markets require regulations in order to stay free, and I agree. A "free market" with no regulations will become the playground of the rich, and completely unfree, in very short order. The government is not the only extra-market force at work in the world.
Expenses are a relative term, too, or do you think that things cost the same in India as they do in America?
You DO realize that most people don't have the income to have both a house and savings? What world do you live in where most people can own a home AND have savings? Oh, Canada, right. Well bully for you. Here in America, it doesn't work that way. If 65% of your liabilities are tied up in mortgage, then 65% of your assets can't be there as well! That would equal 0% of your net worth in your home.
I never claimed the rich do not spend to excess. That link you point to does not separate out the purchases of the ultra wealthy from those of the rest of us. Therefore, you can not use it as proof that the average person spends to excess. But go on and keep blaming the victims here, I'm sure it helps you sleep easier at night.
Yes, they are the same people (or their direct descendants) who were there before. There is more social mobility in France than in the US. On average, it takes five generations for a poor family to become middle class. On average, children of the wealthy stay wealthy, children of the middle class stay middle class (or slip to poor) and children of the poor stay that way. The American Dream of a true meritocracy is a lie. You are like the prisoner Brian meets in the Roman Prison, in Life of Brian, who lauds the Romans while hanging upside down from his feet. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work, indeed.
First, do you believe that American citizens are beholden to contribute to the well being of India? Why? Second, when the article says that the bottom 60% of Americans have 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes, how can you possibly read that as "Americans have mortgaged their homes to the hilt?" If that were that case, Americans would have NO net worth tied up in their homes. You do know what "net worth" means, right? Most Americans do not want to "participate in the culture of excess," they want to be able to eat, house themselves, heat their homes in the winter, and buy necessary medicine, all at the same time. Is that excess?
The people "writing the recipe" are the ultra rich owning class elites, who take all the profits. They then reinvest those profits overseas, where they can make a higher rate of return. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, said that the interests of the worker and the land owner coincide with that of society in general, so that by pursuing their own ends, they help society. However, the stock owner's interests are directly opposite to that of society. When society does well, the laborer gets better pay and the landowner gets more rent, but the stock owner gets LESS of a dividend or increase in stock price. Only when society is failing do stock holders make out like bandits. When society is doing well, most stocks will not perform at better than 6%. The ultra wealthy are destroying society because that benefits them. They are no longer "Americans," they are part of a global elite, and it really does not matter to them if the country goes down the toilet. They have absolutely no loyalty to America.
In America, we make new pies (i.e. increase our GDP) so that the wealthiest.001 percent can have more pie, NOT so that you, Mr. Peasant, can have any pie. You can eat cowflops, or whatever it is you peasants eat. Pie is for the rich.
This shows just how little of the "new pies" the working man has gotten over the last thirty years. In fact, not only has the bottom twenty percent not gotten ANY of the new pie, they have had some of their original pie stolen as well.
Your argument that wealth is not static and traded only apples if the new wealth is distributed equitably. If all of the newly created wealth goes to the top.001 percent, then does it even matter to the rest of us that new wealth was created? No, because, even though we created all of that wealth, we get none of it. The rich do not create wealth, they steal it.
I think the author, were he still alive, would deny "splitting people into black and white groups" as that is a packer trait. "Going through a recipe" does indeed seem to be the way most people approach problems. I believe it is a consequence of our own auto-domestication. Domesticated animals gain social intelligence at the expense of losing general intelligence. It is more efficient for a certain percentage of the population to rely on the thinking of others. Plus, I believe that if we have a solid base of people who are happy just doing what worked for their fathers, that allows safer experimentation with new ideas. So the division of labor is genetically adaptive.
I believe nearly anyone can be taught to think more effectively, however, I'm not sure everyone can be taught to enjoy the process of thinking. Thinking entails uncertainty, and for most people, uncertainty is painful. I think that some people who are natural mappers may still assuage that uncertainty by deciding to hold certain beliefs related to "ultimate meaning" on faith. Personally, I'm a Buddhist in that regard. Ultimate meaning? Right here in the present moment where it always is. It means what it is, that is all it means, and adding anything to that is worse than gilding the lily, it is taking something real away and substituting something imaginary.
Assume that all creationists are called home by their God. It's about as likely as your scenario. Who is going to tell a potential hire the real reasons they aren't getting hired? These aren't stupid people doing the hiring. So they never said "God damn, he stinks!" Who would say that? They will also never say "You're an idiot creationist and that's why we aren't hiring you." I'd say any university stupid enough to fall into that trap deserves to.
Correction. Some human brains are good at compartmentalizing some things. Others of us are completely incapable of compartmentalizing, and any incongruous beliefs are actually painful to hold at the same time. Some people are mappers, some people are packers.
Bitch please, I have never in my life been to this "reddit" and I'm not even really sure what it is. Look at my user ID. Look back at your user ID. Now look at my user ID. Now look back at yours. Don't you wish your user ID could be as low as mine?
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? Screw that. It's a tangent. Congratulations on distracting me with irrelevancies. Even if, EVEN IF every single instance of regulation had been captured in the past, it would not mean that regulation is a bad idea. It would just mean that we need to find a way to stop regulatory capture, whatever it takes. No regulation means the strong prey upon the weak, and I will have no part of that.
Well put.
I think you've seen that we have more than five senses, including one I like to call the sense of justice. It is a feeling, and like all feelings it operates very quickly and imposes powerful consequences on the body and mind. It has developed because having it is advantageous to us as a species, it makes us better cooperators. Genetically speaking, being a true parasite or sociopath is a very small minority strategy. It works, sometimes. Mostly, though, our sense of justice makes us willing to risk our own lives to deter or kill a known parasite. And that makes being a parasite a minority strategy, which is better for the species overall.
In general, I feel the same way as you do. I think most people do. But I was born with a stronger empathy than most, and unlike most men, never had it beaten out of me. Having to feel what people around me feel, having to feel even what people I don't like feel, is difficult sometimes. Sure, I can hate on people, but I'm always conflicted in that hate. And anyway, I try to stretch my sense of empathy to encompass even people like, oh, Hitler. Anyone, really. Bum on the street, serial killer. Everyone. Empathy helps us understand things, and some things need to be understood well to be destroyed fully.
Let me ask you, do you submit to the law in regards to suppressing your urge to punish others because you fear punishment, or because you know it is the right thing to do? We have laws for a reason, do you agree with that reason? Do you follow all laws that may result in a punishment? Do you jaywalk or speed?
We suppress the urge to punish others because we do not have all the facts, and because they may still be of use to us. We may punish unjustly, having a fair court try to figure out the truth helps prevent that. And we may punish too harshly, and then find ourselves needing an ally we no longer have. Ideally, punishment should be shunning, we no longer have to deal with you, go somewhere else, if you try to hang around here, we'll hit you with rocks and sticks. Now, since there's no place left to go, really, I believe we are obliged to provide prisons. Because people do change, they can learn from their mistakes, most of them. And the ones that can't learn, well, keep them around locked up in case we get attacked, we can sick all our sociopaths on the enemy.
So, you know, there are logical reasons for doing the things we do. There are reasons beyond fear of punishment for not acting immediately on our sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and evil. Reasons that relate directly to genetic fitness and passing on some subset of one's genes. So yeah, we have this feeling of fairness, this sense of justice, but we also have those other feelings like love and forgiveness and empathy to balance it out. And overall, we have our conscious minds, capable of logical thoughts. Totally capable of making pretty good models of the self and the world, and eventually figuring out some reasons why we have the feelings we do, yet do things the way we do in society.
But those little models aren't the world, and they aren't the self. We rarely use our logic to do anything. Mostly, we do whatever we feel like and use our logic to make up stories after. So I guess its a good thing most of us have feelings like you do, and would not act the same in all circumstances. For instance, I bet if you were in a situation outside of society, say stranded someplace, or societal collapse, or whatever, and you witnessed injustice, you would take no small risk in attempting to correct it. That makes you, and most people, good people in my book.
You are clueless, and I am engaging in ad hominems becaue you are clueless and absolutely insensitive to the financial plight of the average person, as well as being arrogant and claiming to know something about which you demonstrably know nothing, namely finances and economics. I have absolutely no respect for you, and will not pretend otherwise. You are obviously parroting back things you heard and vaguely remember, and have no real life experience with.
The average home price in America is around $160,000 right now.
The median family wealth in America is around $120,000 right now.
We are in a recession. While stocks (which 90% of people own next to none of, even including their 401ks) have rebounded, home prices have gone down.
YOU FUCKING FIGURE IT OUT, you insufferable turd.
I bank at a credit union. As they take NO profit, distributing any surplus back to members, I have no reason to believe they would steer me wrong. Asshole.
You haven't kept up to date on the dropping price of solar, and the rising price of anything non-renewable. Solar is a much more economical prospect nowadays. Have you been asleep for the past ten years?
Funny, the native Athabaskans felt the same way when white men named it McKinley despite the fact that it was called Denali before conquering invaders ever saw it. But I suppose that you feel the winners get to make the names, eh? In that case, I guess the Athabaskans must have won, because it's called Denali now.
This is nothing at all like a major landmark being renamed by a megacorporation. In fact, renaming Denali to McKinley is akin to renaming the Sears Tower to Willis Tower. Changing McKinley back to Denali would be like changing Willis Tower back to Sears Tower.
When would you guess broadcast radio will die? Movie theaters? Opera? Plays? Perhaps I phrased things wrong. Saying that cassettes obsolesced eight tracks is the same as saying that HD TV obsolesced regular TV. True, but not very meaningful in this context.
By your definition, books are just a broadcast medium for text, and plays and movies both are just a broadcast medium for acting. Internal logical inconsistencies in your basic premise, impressive.
Incremental improvements in media sometimes kill off older versions of that media, thus, the cassette tape killed off 8 track and CDs have mostly killed off the cassette tape. But this is like saying that paper books killed off papyrus scrolls. The underlying media is "writing" which hasn't died yet. In your example, the underlying media is "portable recording" and you will note that even with hand portable Internet connected listening devices, portable recordings are still around.
Where is your proof of this? You do realize that anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? Consider your opinion dismissed until you cite a valid source backing up your ludicrous claims.
If you couldn't go to prison for crimes, wouldn't you do things a wee bit differently? ;-)
No. I wouldn't. I'm not a sociopath. I don't refrain from doing evil because of a fear of punishment. I refrain from doing evil because I have empathy, and because of that, hurting others hurts me directly. It may also harm me indirectly, as people who have been hurt often lash out irrationally, and people whose choices have been constrained often make choices that harm others, potentially including me. Enlightened self interest looks a lot like selflessness .
Please provide evidence that TV is a dying medium. And "shrinking" does not mean "dying." While you are at it, please explain the death of books, plays, radio, and movies. No newer media has ever killed older media.
England. France. Germany. There's three, now you show me one case where regulatory capture increased in a society that limits the influence of wealth over politics. If your wealthiest individual can not afford the bribes necessary to effect regulatory capture, it will not happen. Another factor is our first past the post voting system. In parliamentary systems, and Condorcet type systems, no vote is really "wasted" and so people do not have to pick the lesser of two evils.
If you know that prices are not the same, why would you consider a straight comparison of income fair? "Will cause" is not "has caused."
Regardless, having that much of your net worth tied up in your house is never a good idea.
Dude, you are a fucking idiot, or an asshole, or the clueless scion of an ultra rich family. Who can afford to own a house while having an equal or greater amount of wealth in more liquid assets? Who even thinks that is a good idea? You misunderstand basic finance. Having recently inherited a house and the proceeds of a large life insurance policy, I sought advice from professionals. Even though I already know quite a bit, and have a credit rating of 812. I had $100,000 in cash from the insurance, and $50,000 in equity on a $188,000 house. What do you think these professionals advised me to do? Put most of the money into the house, save enough for a six month to a year cushion. That puts my monthly house, tax and insurance payments at $730 total, so I can save a huge amount of my income. I KNOW for a FACT that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, so I will thank you to shut the hell up before you confuse someone who doesn't realize how idiotic your advice is.
No, you do that. I favor government policy that counters the outrageous power the ultra rich have over politics. The answer to regulatory capture is not fewer regulations, it is less regulatory capture. One good way to keep money out of politics is to take it away from the ultra rich. Let's have a 90% marginal tax rate on a billion dollar income. Adam Smith noted that free markets require regulations in order to stay free, and I agree. A "free market" with no regulations will become the playground of the rich, and completely unfree, in very short order. The government is not the only extra-market force at work in the world.
Expenses are a relative term, too, or do you think that things cost the same in India as they do in America?
You DO realize that most people don't have the income to have both a house and savings? What world do you live in where most people can own a home AND have savings? Oh, Canada, right. Well bully for you. Here in America, it doesn't work that way. If 65% of your liabilities are tied up in mortgage, then 65% of your assets can't be there as well! That would equal 0% of your net worth in your home.
I never claimed the rich do not spend to excess. That link you point to does not separate out the purchases of the ultra wealthy from those of the rest of us. Therefore, you can not use it as proof that the average person spends to excess. But go on and keep blaming the victims here, I'm sure it helps you sleep easier at night.
Yes, they are the same people (or their direct descendants) who were there before. There is more social mobility in France than in the US. On average, it takes five generations for a poor family to become middle class. On average, children of the wealthy stay wealthy, children of the middle class stay middle class (or slip to poor) and children of the poor stay that way. The American Dream of a true meritocracy is a lie. You are like the prisoner Brian meets in the Roman Prison, in Life of Brian, who lauds the Romans while hanging upside down from his feet. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work, indeed.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
http://www.economist.com/node/15908469?story_id=15908469
First, do you believe that American citizens are beholden to contribute to the well being of India? Why?
Second, when the article says that the bottom 60% of Americans have 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes, how can you possibly read that as "Americans have mortgaged their homes to the hilt?" If that were that case, Americans would have NO net worth tied up in their homes. You do know what "net worth" means, right? Most Americans do not want to "participate in the culture of excess," they want to be able to eat, house themselves, heat their homes in the winter, and buy necessary medicine, all at the same time. Is that excess?
Do you mean capitalism, the lending of capital for profit; or do you mean the free market? They are not at all the same thing.
The people "writing the recipe" are the ultra rich owning class elites, who take all the profits. They then reinvest those profits overseas, where they can make a higher rate of return. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, said that the interests of the worker and the land owner coincide with that of society in general, so that by pursuing their own ends, they help society. However, the stock owner's interests are directly opposite to that of society. When society does well, the laborer gets better pay and the landowner gets more rent, but the stock owner gets LESS of a dividend or increase in stock price. Only when society is failing do stock holders make out like bandits. When society is doing well, most stocks will not perform at better than 6%. The ultra wealthy are destroying society because that benefits them. They are no longer "Americans," they are part of a global elite, and it really does not matter to them if the country goes down the toilet. They have absolutely no loyalty to America.
In America, we make new pies (i.e. increase our GDP) so that the wealthiest .001 percent can have more pie, NOT so that you, Mr. Peasant, can have any pie. You can eat cowflops, or whatever it is you peasants eat. Pie is for the rich.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
This shows just how little of the "new pies" the working man has gotten over the last thirty years. In fact, not only has the bottom twenty percent not gotten ANY of the new pie, they have had some of their original pie stolen as well.
Your argument that wealth is not static and traded only apples if the new wealth is distributed equitably. If all of the newly created wealth goes to the top .001 percent, then does it even matter to the rest of us that new wealth was created? No, because, even though we created all of that wealth, we get none of it. The rich do not create wealth, they steal it.
I think the author, were he still alive, would deny "splitting people into black and white groups" as that is a packer trait. "Going through a recipe" does indeed seem to be the way most people approach problems. I believe it is a consequence of our own auto-domestication. Domesticated animals gain social intelligence at the expense of losing general intelligence. It is more efficient for a certain percentage of the population to rely on the thinking of others. Plus, I believe that if we have a solid base of people who are happy just doing what worked for their fathers, that allows safer experimentation with new ideas. So the division of labor is genetically adaptive.
I believe nearly anyone can be taught to think more effectively, however, I'm not sure everyone can be taught to enjoy the process of thinking. Thinking entails uncertainty, and for most people, uncertainty is painful. I think that some people who are natural mappers may still assuage that uncertainty by deciding to hold certain beliefs related to "ultimate meaning" on faith. Personally, I'm a Buddhist in that regard. Ultimate meaning? Right here in the present moment where it always is. It means what it is, that is all it means, and adding anything to that is worse than gilding the lily, it is taking something real away and substituting something imaginary.
Oh, Jeebus, maybe you're right.
Showing several different transliterations of that same Cyrilic character in common usage, and negating your argument.
Assume that all creationists are called home by their God. It's about as likely as your scenario. Who is going to tell a potential hire the real reasons they aren't getting hired? These aren't stupid people doing the hiring. So they never said "God damn, he stinks!" Who would say that? They will also never say "You're an idiot creationist and that's why we aren't hiring you." I'd say any university stupid enough to fall into that trap deserves to.
Correction. Some human brains are good at compartmentalizing some things. Others of us are completely incapable of compartmentalizing, and any incongruous beliefs are actually painful to hold at the same time. Some people are mappers, some people are packers.
Bitch please, I have never in my life been to this "reddit" and I'm not even really sure what it is. Look at my user ID. Look back at your user ID. Now look at my user ID. Now look back at yours. Don't you wish your user ID could be as low as mine?