

What show is this?


What show is this?


First, I think she’s a shameless exaggerator.
Second, this is so stupid. Forget your health: how do you actually think you’re effective without rest? Every human being knows exactly how rest works, because we can all run this test ourselves.
This myth persists that some people can force themselves to be effective with minimal rest by pure will, despite the fact that every one of us has experienced sleep deprivation at some point, and all of us know that without sleep we have the intelligence of a 9 year old.
Anyone who claims to be the exception to this biological rule is either lying or they’re stupid because they didn’t sleep and now have the intelligence of a nine year old.
Also: not “needing” sleep is often something said by people with insomnia. People like Trump and Musk do survive on only a few hours of sleep a night. But this isn’t because they’re strong or smart: it’s because their brains are not functioning correctly and they can’t get sleep they need.
Sleep isn’t optional. This PM is fucking up their job by walking through life confused and disoriented.


I addressed this in several other responses.
I’m aware that there is a strong consensus among the actual scholars who study this. The issue is that a consensus is being obstructed throug editorial control by elites. The question being debated, imo, isn’t whether Israel committed genocide (we all know they have). It’s whether Wikipedia breaking standard procedures is a sound strategy to circumvent the suppression of truth by elites.
I think the case in both directions is strong. It’s very appealing in the short term.


Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?
Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.


I want to be clear.
I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.
This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?
I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.
The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.


I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.
I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?
Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.
It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.
I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.


Deep take. Thanks for sharing.


I really love your analogy. I’m imagining early 90s Windows and AOL bombarding folks with pop ups that say ‘want to take this with you? Print it!’ and ‘Did you know you can print anytime you like with our new dedicated keyboard print button?’ and ‘Try our new cassette music player, now printer-powered to give you the best sound you’ve ever heard!’


I think the comment being posted accidentally in the wrong thread makes more sense.


My son went as Wario.
I went as Waluigi, similar stuff and costs.
There’s one more key consideration I haven’t heard people mention: you can choose to make your costume out of stuff you can wear outside of Halloween!
My son can wear purple overalls any day of the year. Our hats aren’t cheap costume hats, they’re baseball caps, which are useful accessories you can wear any time.
If you’re looking to get started making a Halloween costume, try going to a thrift store or an online reseller like Mercari and recognize that Halloween is an opportunity to buy stuff you kinda want to wear but feel self conscious about buying. Buy yourself a used leather biker jacket. It’s just a costume! But also… Now you happen to have a dope jacket in your closet. Maybe wear it the week after Halloween and see if it feels right…
That’s one of the best parts of putting together Halloween costumes, imo.


What does this mean?


WOW. So that’s where that video came from.
This is such a wild portrait into this attorney. They’re a lawyer in the Israeli army, so I can’t not assume that they’re ultimately complicit in so many atrocities. And yet they also did something incredibly selfless and dangerous in the name of justice, which most humans will never ever do.
It must be enormously painful to sacrifice your career and entire family’s social standing to bring a gross abuse to light, and then have much of your own society say, ‘Now that we’ve seen this proof… We’re going to stick with our position. You thought we’d change when you proved the claims of rape? No, we’re just going to admit that we endorse rape.’
I do appreciate their bravery, because the release of this video, imo, has been one of the most impactful events in the narrative of Jewish Israeli self image. This event did force a reflection. It forced Israeli Jews to confront that their actions were inconsistent with their belief that they are a righteous people. Unfortunately, it seems that when faced with this incongruity, they resolved the conflict by accepting that they’re the bad guys rather than insisting on stopping it. But I think accepting it did move the world another step towards accepting reality. And that’s progress towards the day the occupation is ended by external pressure.


It’s good enough to keep me interested.
It’s not good enough to replace Reddit yet, in the sense that I’m still active on Reddit. But there is enough worthwhile content here that I can check in each day and find some stuff that I enjoy. And that’s enough to give me a reason to keep coming back.


This is an interesting observation, but I watched Daredevil like a decade ago and I’ve never seen Superman & Lois so I don’t really know what you’re talking about.


The question “are we in a recession??” always makes me think of the SNL at-home headache test commercial:


Deal removes constraint on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital
I think they mean “raze”…


I don’t think his strength is within an order of magnitude of theirs. I don’t think his durability is either.
Granted, I wouldn’t be surprised if you showed me a comic showing otherwise. There’s probably a comic where he goes inside a star or something stupid, because there are always those kinds of writers. But based on his typical portrayal, I think he’s more of a brush off a car crash and pick it up guy than a survive a nuke and crush coal into diamonds guy.


You know, sometimes when the Avengers announce a new inductee I’m like, ‘Really?! You think that’s a good strategic addition?? This feels more like a popularity contest!’
Their choices kind of look to me more like a publisher’s idea of what will sell books & toys than a cooperative of gifted public servants. But I’m probably just being silly.


Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.
They’re not just “wrong”: they’re half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.
Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we’re living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we’ll likely experience the same thing. We’re all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But… It’ll probably be great.
He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can’t shake the sense that it’s going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can’t be the case. So there you have it.
It’ll be terrible great.
It’s an amusing premise, but I think that if you actually pay attention to the arc of his life and everything said by the people who understand him (Mary Trump’s book is perhaps the best on this), it doesn’t bear out.
By all evidence, Trump doesn’t really experience romantic attraction, and his sexual appetites have always been primarily for power and attention. Read Stormy Daniels account of his “lovemaking”. He doesn’t really like getting sweaty. During the years he was a famous lothario, he widely faked this image due to having an enormous fear of STIs, especially HIV.
He does seem to enjoy bodies, but almost always through the thrill of conquest: he likes taking something he considers a prize.
Does he secretly long for cock? Has he suppressed urges under social pressure? Almost certainly not. He’s always revelled in being sexually deviant, and thrilled in violating social norms, so if he wanted men he likely would’ve direct the 90s getting rich for being a famous gay pervert instead of a getting rich for being a famous straight pervert.
It’s highly likely that he’s gotten sexual service from men or femboys, because that fits the profile. But suck a dick? No. Never. Not because it’s gay: because it’s giving. This is a guy who has almost certainly never given oral service to anyone, man or woman.