A few weeks ago, I’d have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes… We’ll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?

We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we’ll ever get to try something like this because that’s how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?

It’s “moo”.

Oh, I’m all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I’m sure these two would start a good one if allowed.

Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone’s guess…

Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that’s also the most time we’ll ever have.

It’s probably assuming that you’re also getting fries, a drink and an ice cream cone each or something. That simply cannot be enough.

Because there’s no “wrong” answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

I still have hope… just not for America. I can make somewhere else better.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.

It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.

Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.

The difference is between cursing and cursing AT someone.

“The garage door broke.” “Ah, fuck.” - Fine “You fuck.” - Not acceptable

If you get a written warning, it’s probably time to start looking for a new job regardless.

I remember getting a hand-me-down digital ‘black book’ to store phone numbers during the age of the palm pilot. It had a ‘dial’ button and a speaker on the back. You could pick up the phone, put the speaker against the phone’s mouthpiece and it would ‘dial’ by playing the correct tones. Blew. My. Mind.

Seriously. Someone never clicked on the “you are an idiot” popup that auto-played music, moved around the screen, prevented task manager from opening and cloned itself if it was closed.

Hey congrats! I worked seasonally at Best Buy a few times and am also recently out of a 3 year hiatus. It’s a good kind of nerve wracking, though.

I remember the best advice for me through the process of their digital training/ personality test is that they already have a specific answer in mind. There aren’t philosophical debates. They want to know that you understand it’s a business and that there is always a ‘better’ answer, so give them that answer.

(I e. If they ever say on a scale of 1-5, the answer is always 1 or 5. )

A nerd who had these costumes also would have either said “Wicket and Chewbacca” or “Ewok and Wookie”. That’s not just “an Ewok”. That’s the most well known Ewok.

Yep! My brain works similarly. I essentially set bookmarks in stories for specific information. Although it can backfire when I answer without considering where I am or who I’m talking to first, which is why I’ll occasionally say horrifying, arrogant or otherwise tone-deaf stories without realizing it beforehand.

“Sorry that story involved a graphic injury and/or abusive situation, that was just the required-context paragraph for any story in that folder in my brain. It’s worked in similar social settings before, like with my therapist or with the school guidance counselor right after it happened, so I didn’t realize it wasnt appropriate in this job interview.”

“For the third time, please leave.”

“They all have similarly vague ‘clinical’ vibes though, right? You can see how I got confused.”

Except you’d also have to factor it county-by-county with how long it would take to drive to a state where there is no ban.

It’s the same with guns. If your neighbor won’t ban it, it’s not really a ban. It’s an inconvenience charge that only the rich can afford to pay.

That is a good point, and to be honest, I had completely forgotten about both assassination attempts. When I heard him bring it up during the debate that “he took a bullet to the head”, it just felt like every other crazy grandpa story. Especially since he also says stuff like “they’re eating the dogs and cats”.

Since there haven’t been any policy changes and no one even seems to WANT policy changes, it’s yet another in the long list of “thoughts and prayers”.

But agreed on the imagery of how political campaigns look with guns. It gets a bit too “Y’allquaeda”. I just want the campaigns to show him as the whiny baby he is.

Ironic that Job is the one who goes “koka koka koka kaw” and isn’t pictured.

Here we have: “Chaw che-chaw che-chaw” “Kookoo ka-CHA” and “A-coodle-doodle-doo”

It could just be an ad. Show her at the gun range, hitting the mark. Show him going “bing bing bing” since that’s the sound he thinks guns make.

Didn’t the guy who originally posted the “1:1 model comparisons” later admit that he stretched and scaled the models to fit better?

It’s derivative, but not a ripoff.