So what? We're not talking about 'human drivers' we're talking about your Savoir the Self Driving Car that's supposed to be so goddamned wonderful, and it just killed a human being. That's what's on trial here. I don't give a flying fuck about how many people are killed by human operated cars every day.
I appreciate your honesty, but don't worry, we could already tell. It's obvious that you don't care about how many people are killed, and you don't care about whether driverless cars are safer; all you really care about is finding an opportunity to rant and rave and generally act like a dick.
The rest of us DO actually care about how many people die, and we care about reducing that number. This is why you'll never be part of any actual discussion on the subject.
What a coincidence that it just happens to be a SDC that just happens to kill a pedestrian!
Uh, yeah. 15 pedestrians are killed every day by human drivers in the US alone. What kind of simpleton freaks out about one pedestrian killed in the entire history of self-driving cars?
So, about 3% of people can have effects from consuming violent media... so only 10 million Americans are at risk.
That's not how that works. 3 subjects showed an increase in violent behvior, whereas statistically we would expect 10. The linked article erroneously claims that their increase in violent behaviour was due to the video games, while the study does not draw such a ridiculous conclusion. On the contrary, the data shows that the increase in violence is lower than what would be expected of a representative sample who didn't play any games at all.
With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.
ShanghaiBill does an excellent job of debunking the idea that school shootings are on the rise, but, even if we were to pretend that they are actually on the rise in the USA, your conclusion is retarded. Violent and realistic FPS games don't magically stay confined within your borders. People all over the world play them. Unless you're claiming that school shootings are on the rise around the globe it's idiotic to conclude that games are the reason.
Including a low-resolution image directly in the HTML using a data: URI has two purposes.
He didn't say "low resolution", he said "blurry".
I've seen that before. The included image isn't a low-res version of the final image; it's a high-res version of the image which has been intentionally blurred all to shit. So the rest of your comment is irrelevant; not only are they not saving bandwidth by providing a low-res photo, they're actually wasting even more bandwidth by including a high-res but blurred photo, and then using JavaScript to load the non-blurred photo.
tl;dr: the republicans did to her image what the democrats did to Trump's image.
Shocker. Never before in politics have we seen political parties trying to malign the reputation of opposing politicians. This is a truly horrific and completely unexpected development.
...which means, obviously, why did they need to do any cable tightening to begin with? If it was to ensure the structure that supports the bridge was capable of supporting 1,000 tons, then that suggests it was never safe to begin with
No. Concrete under compression behaves much differently than concrete under tension. A concrete span of that length couldn't possibly survive on it's own; gravity would cause the centre to sag more than the ends, which would put a tensile force on it and literally pull the concrete apart. To avoid this you add cables which compress the concrete, eliminating the tension. With the tension gone your span goes from fail-under-its-own-weight mode to being able to support several times it's own weight.
I'm pretty sure she got Rhomey'd. e.g. the firms thought they had an easy win so they pocketed the money and didn't campaign.
If that's the case, she should sue.
It's certainly a possible explanation, but less likely than the alternative. Ockham's Razor says that, all else being equal, the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. We know that she was an unlikable candidate with very little "organic" appeal. We know that a massive portion of the people who would normally constitute the Democrat base were extremely pissed off that she got nominated over Bernie. Given those two things, we don't need to bring in lazy contract-violating PR firms to explain why she lost despite spending twice as much as Trump; we already have our explanation without going there.
it's about growing as much food as we can, wherever we can, and as efficiently as we can. It's about continuing to feed a population which has exceeded 7 billion and is projected to top out at over 10 billion, without needing to cut down more rainforests in order to do it.
And GMOs do nothing about that.
And we have now reached the end of this "discussion". If you are ignorant enough to not know about the general benefits of genetically engendered strains then you certainly do not know anything useful about the subject. And if you're not that ignorant then you're just a liar. Either way you are speaking nonsense and clearly have no interest in what's actually true.
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross).
False dichotomy; those are not the only two ways in which new species are developed. Popular alternatives include immersing plants in chemical baths, or bombarding them with radiation, and then seeing if anything interesting arises. Both of those methods are apparently perfectly acceptable in "organic farming".
But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe).
There is lots of stuff in your food which kills bugs, and the vast majority of it is completely "natural". The most obvious example is caffeine; plants evolved it as a defense against insects. There are hundreds of similar examples contained in many of the vegetables you consume every day. How much time do you spend worrying about them?
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse....
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
Those two paragraphs do not mesh. If you had anything like the background you claim to there is no way you would be making the kind of idiotic claim which constitutes your entire first paragraph.
All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.
Hillary's campaign had and spent about double the money that Trump did on his campaign. Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.
The right to bear arms is regularly considered near unlimited, at least with respect to things up to and including AR15s.
The right to privacy implied in the same constitution is regularly limited all over the place. Our personal data should be covered in that right to privacy even if we have to have another amendment to do it.
You're terribly confused. Your right to bear arms is not some magical pixie dust which protects you from everyone; it's a limitation on what the government is allowed to do to you. It has no bearing on private individuals. If I disarm you, I am not violating your 2nd amendment rights. This has been tested in the courts, so feel free to look it up. I may or may not be violating some federal or state law, but as a private individual I can never be said to have infringed on your constitutional rights. Ergo the same applies to your "right to privacy". The government may be constitutionally prevented from violating your privacy, but I am not, and neither is Facebook, or google, or any other corporation.
tl;dr, any amendments you pass wouldn't do dick to protect you from Facebook.
If you can verify it from your computer, then your boss can stand over you while you do so.
Sure, in the same sense that your boss can stand over you while you type in the password for your bitcoins wallet. But if he's forcing you to do either of those things it would be very illegal.
Even if it is both secret and verifiable, then you can tell at least one ballot was cast for your candidate. Can we ensure that all the other thousands or millions of ballots are correct, specifically that no invalid ballots have been added?
No, you can't, but you can count the total that were cast. If normal turnout is 60% of the eligible population and you count that in this particular election 93% of the population voted, that would set off off some alarm bells. Especially if it's not supported by observers at the polling booths.
Either way, the inability for you personally to verify that every single vote is legitimate doesn't take away anything; you can't do that now, either. Adding the ability for you to check your own vote is a huge improvement. Adding the ability for the public to verify how many votes were cast and for whom would be a huge improvement.
I ask sincerely... I want a good system, I just don't know what it takes to remove these massive flaws.
You can either have privacy, or complete transparency. Pick one.
It's still black-box voting. Paper is traceable by anyone.
Is it? Can I go and have someone pull out my ballot so I can make sure that it wasn't thrown out? Even if I can get it, can I make sure it was actually counted?
Fuck no.
Anonymized block chain ballots are a step in the right direction but, ideally, each ballot should be anonymous to everyone except the person who cast it. In other words, in an ideal system, I should get some sort of key after I cast my vote, which I can later use to verify that my vote is still part of the block chain, and is actually being counted towards the correct candidate. THAT would be a truly traceable system. Every single person would be able to verify that their vote has not been discarded, and do so from the comfort of their own home.
Yes, it's very complicated. For instance, if you look at estimates of how much land is actually suitable for agriculture you could conclude that we are currently using about one third of it. This makes many people feel safe and secure, thinking that we have plenty of room to expand. However such estimates tend to include ALL suitable land, including much of the land which is currently covered by forests as well as plenty of land which is covered with houses, roads, parking lots, etc. I shouldn't have to explain why we don't want to cut down the rest of the forests, or tear down our infrastructure. Once you factor in all of that, the available land shrinks significantly. You also have to look at what that land is actually suitable FOR. This shrinks it down even further. Actual useful estimates are difficult to produce, but it's safe to say that we don't have a huge amount of room for expansion.
The lack of room is an issue because our population is not static. We currently have 7 billion people, about 10% of whom are starving. We are going to hit 10 billion people in just over 30 years. Even if we are perfectly happy to continue having 10% of the population starving, that still means we need to increase food output by about 40% in the next 30 years. Without increases in crop yields that means we will need 40% more land. If we actually want to reduce starvation to zero, you can add another 10% to that figure.
Even if we currently had 40% more land which could be converted to agriculture without destroying the environment, you have to keep in mind that we aren't going to have all of it 30 years from now. After all, we need houses, roads, and parking lots for the 3 billion people who will be born during that time, and much of that infrustructure is going to expand into potentially arable land.
Now, it is true that we COULD probably feed even a population of 10 billion without GMOs. The meat and dairy industries currently account for a massively disproportionate amount of the land we use for food production. If you could somehow convince the entire globe to go vegan our land requirements would decrease significantly, probably to the point where feeding everyone becomes possible without increased yields. However, there are a couple caviats:
1. Your "organic" produce goes out the window. Without animal husbandry "natural" fertilizer production would be essentially zero, so all crops would rely on synthetic fertilisers. 2. People really really like their meat, and they're going to get very mad at you.
While eliminating or at least significantly reducing meat production is worth looking at, it's probably not a practical goal.
Once you've had a look at all of these different factors you eventually have to reach the conclusion that the only practical, responsible, and sustainable way to continue feeding our growing population is by increasing yields and decreasing inputs. Norman Borlaug did that back in the 1950s-70s, ushering in the "green revolution". Thanks to his scientific approach to agriculture we were able to improve efficiency to unheard of levels; his work is the reason that food is as cheap and abundant as it currently is. However we have now essentially hit the limit of what we can accomplish using the methods he developed. While some small improvements in efficiency can still doubtless be made without resorting to genetic engineering, they won't add up to much. Going forward, if we hope to continue improving, genetic engineering is the best tool available to us.
tl;dr: regardless of whether or not it's technically possible to continue feeding the world without "GMOs", it is undeniable that using genetic engineering will make the task easier, cheaper, and less damaging to our environment. It would be both foolish and incredibly irresponsible to abstain from using it.
I stay informed about the topic since about 40 years.
The evidence says otherwise.
The world has changed. 40 years ago we thought we could reduce world hunger by having GMO foods growing in the hunger zones.
Wrong. It's not about growing food "in hunger zones", it's about growing as much food as we can, wherever we can, and as efficiently as we can. It's about continuing to feed a population which has exceeded 7 billion and is projected to top out at over 10 billion, without needing to cut down more rainforests in order to do it.
the hunger zones are not hungry because of bad harvests, but because of poverty, tyranny or bad options for food distribution.
They are hungry for many reasons, of which war and distribution problems are significant contributors, yes. However, again, this isn't just about them; it's about everyone.
Claiming someone knows not much about a topic is rather retarded. I don't have your posting history in my mind, but you always where super aggressive, and I don't recall a post or position of yours that indicates you have any knowledge about agriculture.
You can pull as hominems and question my credentials all you like; this isn't about me, it's about your ridiculous claim. Logical fallacies are a poor way to support your argument.
We have about 12 million farmers in the EU. They are basically all against GMOs.
Likewise, an appeal to popularity is also a logical fallacy. Even if your claim were true (and it's definitely not) it would be completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not GE is good or neccesary in order to continue to feed the world.
It is a save bet that the majourity of them has more clue about GMOs you have...
It's a "save bet" that you have absolutely no clue how to make a rational argument.
Actually this post is disinfo designed to ridicule the idea of fake conspiracies (like flat earth) being used to discredit real conspiracies (like fluoride in the water).
That's an absolutely brilliant display of Poe's Law. Thank you!
Slashdot Mirror
So what? We're not talking about 'human drivers' we're talking about your Savoir the Self Driving Car that's supposed to be so goddamned wonderful, and it just killed a human being. That's what's on trial here. I don't give a flying fuck about how many people are killed by human operated cars every day.
I appreciate your honesty, but don't worry, we could already tell. It's obvious that you don't care about how many people are killed, and you don't care about whether driverless cars are safer; all you really care about is finding an opportunity to rant and rave and generally act like a dick.
The rest of us DO actually care about how many people die, and we care about reducing that number. This is why you'll never be part of any actual discussion on the subject.
The Dividend is 12.5% in my current model, and it puts a complete and total end to homelessness and hunger
No, it doesn't. If you think that there's an economic solution to homelessness and hunger, you don't really understand the problem.
What a coincidence that it just happens to be a SDC that just happens to kill a pedestrian!
Uh, yeah. 15 pedestrians are killed every day by human drivers in the US alone. What kind of simpleton freaks out about one pedestrian killed in the entire history of self-driving cars?
So, about 3% of people can have effects from consuming violent media... so only 10 million Americans are at risk.
That's not how that works. 3 subjects showed an increase in violent behvior, whereas statistically we would expect 10. The linked article erroneously claims that their increase in violent behaviour was due to the video games, while the study does not draw such a ridiculous conclusion. On the contrary, the data shows that the increase in violence is lower than what would be expected of a representative sample who didn't play any games at all.
You sound like a budding school shooter right now ...
With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.
ShanghaiBill does an excellent job of debunking the idea that school shootings are on the rise, but, even if we were to pretend that they are actually on the rise in the USA, your conclusion is retarded. Violent and realistic FPS games don't magically stay confined within your borders. People all over the world play them. Unless you're claiming that school shootings are on the rise around the globe it's idiotic to conclude that games are the reason.
FPS games today thrive on realism
lol. Good one. Yeah, in real life, the best way to make the enemy miss you is by jumping up and down.
Including a low-resolution image directly in the HTML using a data: URI has two purposes.
He didn't say "low resolution", he said "blurry".
I've seen that before. The included image isn't a low-res version of the final image; it's a high-res version of the image which has been intentionally blurred all to shit. So the rest of your comment is irrelevant; not only are they not saving bandwidth by providing a low-res photo, they're actually wasting even more bandwidth by including a high-res but blurred photo, and then using JavaScript to load the non-blurred photo.
tl;dr: the republicans did to her image what the democrats did to Trump's image.
Shocker. Never before in politics have we seen political parties trying to malign the reputation of opposing politicians. This is a truly horrific and completely unexpected development.
...which means, obviously, why did they need to do any cable tightening to begin with? If it was to ensure the structure that supports the bridge was capable of supporting 1,000 tons, then that suggests it was never safe to begin with
No. Concrete under compression behaves much differently than concrete under tension. A concrete span of that length couldn't possibly survive on it's own; gravity would cause the centre to sag more than the ends, which would put a tensile force on it and literally pull the concrete apart. To avoid this you add cables which compress the concrete, eliminating the tension. With the tension gone your span goes from fail-under-its-own-weight mode to being able to support several times it's own weight.
I'm pretty sure she got Rhomey'd. e.g. the firms thought they had an easy win so they pocketed the money and didn't campaign.
If that's the case, she should sue.
It's certainly a possible explanation, but less likely than the alternative. Ockham's Razor says that, all else being equal, the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true. We know that she was an unlikable candidate with very little "organic" appeal. We know that a massive portion of the people who would normally constitute the Democrat base were extremely pissed off that she got nominated over Bernie. Given those two things, we don't need to bring in lazy contract-violating PR firms to explain why she lost despite spending twice as much as Trump; we already have our explanation without going there.
it's about growing as much food as we can, wherever we can, and as efficiently as we can. It's about continuing to feed a population which has exceeded 7 billion and is projected to top out at over 10 billion, without needing to cut down more rainforests in order to do it.
And GMOs do nothing about that.
And we have now reached the end of this "discussion". If you are ignorant enough to not know about the general benefits of genetically engendered strains then you certainly do not know anything useful about the subject. And if you're not that ignorant then you're just a liar. Either way you are speaking nonsense and clearly have no interest in what's actually true.
Toodles.
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross).
False dichotomy; those are not the only two ways in which new species are developed. Popular alternatives include immersing plants in chemical baths, or bombarding them with radiation, and then seeing if anything interesting arises. Both of those methods are apparently perfectly acceptable in "organic farming".
But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) .
There is lots of stuff in your food which kills bugs, and the vast majority of it is completely "natural". The most obvious example is caffeine; plants evolved it as a defense against insects. There are hundreds of similar examples contained in many of the vegetables you consume every day. How much time do you spend worrying about them?
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
I dunno ... morals? A commitment to truth? Or is that all too passé?
There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse. ...
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
Those two paragraphs do not mesh. If you had anything like the background you claim to there is no way you would be making the kind of idiotic claim which constitutes your entire first paragraph.
All Hilary had to do was take him seriously and campaign properly (or at all) in the swing states.
Hillary's campaign had and spent about double the money that Trump did on his campaign. Seems they were pretty serious. The thing is ... no matter how much money you spend buying makeup for a pig, it's still going to be a pig.
The right to bear arms is regularly considered near unlimited, at least with respect to things up to and including AR15s.
The right to privacy implied in the same constitution is regularly limited all over the place. Our personal data should be covered in that right to privacy even if we have to have another amendment to do it.
You're terribly confused. Your right to bear arms is not some magical pixie dust which protects you from everyone; it's a limitation on what the government is allowed to do to you. It has no bearing on private individuals. If I disarm you, I am not violating your 2nd amendment rights. This has been tested in the courts, so feel free to look it up. I may or may not be violating some federal or state law, but as a private individual I can never be said to have infringed on your constitutional rights. Ergo the same applies to your "right to privacy". The government may be constitutionally prevented from violating your privacy, but I am not, and neither is Facebook, or google, or any other corporation.
tl;dr, any amendments you pass wouldn't do dick to protect you from Facebook.
This is what happens when you play too much "Clue" as a kid.
If you can verify it from your computer, then your boss can stand over you while you do so.
Sure, in the same sense that your boss can stand over you while you type in the password for your bitcoins wallet. But if he's forcing you to do either of those things it would be very illegal.
Even if it is both secret and verifiable, then you can tell at least one ballot was cast for your candidate. Can we ensure that all the other thousands or millions of ballots are correct, specifically that no invalid ballots have been added?
No, you can't, but you can count the total that were cast. If normal turnout is 60% of the eligible population and you count that in this particular election 93% of the population voted, that would set off off some alarm bells. Especially if it's not supported by observers at the polling booths.
Either way, the inability for you personally to verify that every single vote is legitimate doesn't take away anything; you can't do that now, either. Adding the ability for you to check your own vote is a huge improvement. Adding the ability for the public to verify how many votes were cast and for whom would be a huge improvement.
I ask sincerely... I want a good system, I just don't know what it takes to remove these massive flaws.
You can either have privacy, or complete transparency. Pick one.
It's still black-box voting. Paper is traceable by anyone.
Is it? Can I go and have someone pull out my ballot so I can make sure that it wasn't thrown out? Even if I can get it, can I make sure it was actually counted?
Fuck no.
Anonymized block chain ballots are a step in the right direction but, ideally, each ballot should be anonymous to everyone except the person who cast it. In other words, in an ideal system, I should get some sort of key after I cast my vote, which I can later use to verify that my vote is still part of the block chain, and is actually being counted towards the correct candidate. THAT would be a truly traceable system. Every single person would be able to verify that their vote has not been discarded, and do so from the comfort of their own home.
Like I said ... complicated...
Yes, it's very complicated. For instance, if you look at estimates of how much land is actually suitable for agriculture you could conclude that we are currently using about one third of it. This makes many people feel safe and secure, thinking that we have plenty of room to expand. However such estimates tend to include ALL suitable land, including much of the land which is currently covered by forests as well as plenty of land which is covered with houses, roads, parking lots, etc. I shouldn't have to explain why we don't want to cut down the rest of the forests, or tear down our infrastructure. Once you factor in all of that, the available land shrinks significantly. You also have to look at what that land is actually suitable FOR. This shrinks it down even further. Actual useful estimates are difficult to produce, but it's safe to say that we don't have a huge amount of room for expansion.
The lack of room is an issue because our population is not static. We currently have 7 billion people, about 10% of whom are starving. We are going to hit 10 billion people in just over 30 years. Even if we are perfectly happy to continue having 10% of the population starving, that still means we need to increase food output by about 40% in the next 30 years. Without increases in crop yields that means we will need 40% more land. If we actually want to reduce starvation to zero, you can add another 10% to that figure.
Even if we currently had 40% more land which could be converted to agriculture without destroying the environment, you have to keep in mind that we aren't going to have all of it 30 years from now. After all, we need houses, roads, and parking lots for the 3 billion people who will be born during that time, and much of that infrustructure is going to expand into potentially arable land.
Now, it is true that we COULD probably feed even a population of 10 billion without GMOs. The meat and dairy industries currently account for a massively disproportionate amount of the land we use for food production. If you could somehow convince the entire globe to go vegan our land requirements would decrease significantly, probably to the point where feeding everyone becomes possible without increased yields. However, there are a couple caviats:
1. Your "organic" produce goes out the window. Without animal husbandry "natural" fertilizer production would be essentially zero, so all crops would rely on synthetic fertilisers.
2. People really really like their meat, and they're going to get very mad at you.
While eliminating or at least significantly reducing meat production is worth looking at, it's probably not a practical goal.
Once you've had a look at all of these different factors you eventually have to reach the conclusion that the only practical, responsible, and sustainable way to continue feeding our growing population is by increasing yields and decreasing inputs. Norman Borlaug did that back in the 1950s-70s, ushering in the "green revolution". Thanks to his scientific approach to agriculture we were able to improve efficiency to unheard of levels; his work is the reason that food is as cheap and abundant as it currently is. However we have now essentially hit the limit of what we can accomplish using the methods he developed. While some small improvements in efficiency can still doubtless be made without resorting to genetic engineering, they won't add up to much. Going forward, if we hope to continue improving, genetic engineering is the best tool available to us.
tl;dr: regardless of whether or not it's technically possible to continue feeding the world without "GMOs", it is undeniable that using genetic engineering will make the task easier, cheaper, and less damaging to our environment. It would be both foolish and incredibly irresponsible to abstain from using it.
I stay informed about the topic since about 40 years.
The evidence says otherwise.
The world has changed. 40 years ago we thought we could reduce world hunger by having GMO foods growing in the hunger zones.
Wrong. It's not about growing food "in hunger zones", it's about growing as much food as we can, wherever we can, and as efficiently as we can. It's about continuing to feed a population which has exceeded 7 billion and is projected to top out at over 10 billion, without needing to cut down more rainforests in order to do it.
the hunger zones are not hungry because of bad harvests, but because of poverty, tyranny or bad options for food distribution.
They are hungry for many reasons, of which war and distribution problems are significant contributors, yes. However, again, this isn't just about them; it's about everyone.
Claiming someone knows not much about a topic is rather retarded. I don't have your posting history in my mind, but you always where super aggressive, and I don't recall a post or position of yours that indicates you have any knowledge about agriculture.
You can pull as hominems and question my credentials all you like; this isn't about me, it's about your ridiculous claim. Logical fallacies are a poor way to support your argument.
We have about 12 million farmers in the EU.
They are basically all against GMOs.
Likewise, an appeal to popularity is also a logical fallacy. Even if your claim were true (and it's definitely not) it would be completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not GE is good or neccesary in order to continue to feed the world.
It is a save bet that the majourity of them has more clue about GMOs you have ...
It's a "save bet" that you have absolutely no clue how to make a rational argument.
Actually this post is disinfo designed to ridicule the idea of fake conspiracies (like flat earth) being used to discredit real conspiracies (like fluoride in the water).
That's an absolutely brilliant display of Poe's Law. Thank you!
Have you ever heard the phrase "couldn't see the forest for the trees"?
Bt is an organic pesticide. Organic farmers spray it in vast quantities
Yes, I'm very well aware of that. But BT corn is Teh Ebil GMO, so in their world it's not "organic".
Don't expect consistency from these fucktards.