When not in real life, I spend my time here.
followed tags: 11
followed domains: 3
badges given: 56 of 96
member for: 2251 days
- “Everyone is distracted,” Rosenstein says. “All of the time.”
More simply put, "I created a product that works exactly as I intended it to."
If he felt that bad, he'd give the money back. This is like a eugenecist lamenting that his work was used to justify oppressing people. "We were trying to make the world a better place!" Fuck off, please. These people make media companies seem like chaste nuns. The fact that the one dude quoted above can have his assistant program his phone to not let him download apps is the embodiment of how out of touch he is.
That depends though, doesn't it? When striving to create, "good enough" is essentially failure. Good enough might get you a paycheck, but it won't lead to satisfaction. If you're picking on yourself about relatively trivial things, then by all means stop. But in your work, your meaningful relationships, etc, good enough is far from good enough.
I die a little each time I am reminded that my once reasonable home has now thrown in its lot with Alabama. Kid Rock's stupid ass covered Sweet Home Alabama a few years back, and he's apparently running to make Roy Moore the second worst Senator (a hard title to grab, because actually nobody seems to know what Kid Rock's policy objectives [lol] are or if he has any beyond "being white trash is cool and so is being a Senator, so fuck you, I'm running").
Roy Moore was an officer of the court who literally believed that the laws of the US are based on the 10 commandments, despite the fact that (a) very few overlap, and (b), if we stopped coveting our economy would collapse. There's no combating that with words, because it's disprovable in a single sentence.
My favorite Tom Petty moment will always be the "American girl" scene in silence of the lambs. (Sharing good memories instead of being upset.)
If millennials contribute nothing to the world other than shuttering Applebee's, we will have won the war.
When my wife and I got together, she insisted on buying a house, forcing me out of the condo life. A house is cool in a lot of ways, but I put a hard condition on it that I was never going to mow the lawn. We have a guy that does it for $30/mow; it's a decent deal considering we have half an acre, which would take me probably an hour or slightly more to do on my own. Fuck all that shit. Lawn guy is well worth it. I outsource a few other things, too, because I'm 100% unwilling to give up weekends in service of spinning the wheels.
The upside of buying a house is getting to do whatever you want. For example, I just remodeled most of the upstairs, which would require permits and approvals to do in any condo. Your house is yours to do with what you please, and that is fun if you're inclined to break/fix/make stuff (as I would expect an engineer to do).
Like everything, there's ups and downs, but on the balance I like owning a house a lot more than I thought I would. Being physically separated from neighbors turns out to mean a lot more than I thought it would (e.g. loud music at night, not being careful and conscious all the time, etc.). That the best thing. Don't plant a lot of landscaping that takes time, and you'll be golden.
I agree that time three is correct. I don't think you need to resort to em dash in the other two instances; a comma would suffice since what comes after each looks like a modifying clause for the previous statement. Not that I think an em would be incorrect, just that normally when I use them it's to really pause and make an aside. I think the author's intent is just to modify the statement, in which case I would always go comma.
I remember hearing about this issue for the first time a few years ago on NPR, and the government spokesperson pretty much summed up why these people are doomed. When asked about the persecution of the Rohingya people, instead of addressing the violence in any way, the man replied, "There is no such thing as Rohingya." Pretty bleak response.
Not trying to be lecturing, just trying to point out that the morality of any particular tactic in the War is irrelevant, because the whole thing immoral and illegitimate.
Beyond what has already been said, there's another dimension to the "morality" of the war on drugs that hasn't yet been covered. Despite what any well meaning police officer may believe about the moral nature of what he or she is doing, the war on drugs was started for a very explicit reason: to infiltrate the President's enemies (President Nixon, that is, and this isn't speculation or conspiracy theory--it is well documented). There is a longer history than that that extends back to post-prohibition when the G-men all needed jobs suddenly--and that history is mostly about racism. The modern incarnation of the DEA was convened by Richard Nixon because he saw hippies and radical blacks as his natural enemies, and the thing they had in common was a penchant for weed, LSD, and heroin. Thus, the drug war. It was started on a lie, and thus has literally zero moral credence. The premises don't hold, so the conclusions can't either.
Everyone who supports the war on drugs is a stooge in Nixon dirty political game. The DEA is a great example of what is sometimes called "internal lobbying" (to distinguish it from industry lobbying). Once a government department has been created, that department has to spend a bunch of time, effort, and money to ensure that their people still have jobs. Because drugs do affect lots of people negatively, the DEA has done a splendid job ("THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS") of making themselves appear important enough that no Congressperson will vote to kill them. It's effective and pernicious.
Maybe if we all clap our hands...