Bytemeister
@Bytemeister@lemmy.world
- Comment on I'm just a big toasty cinnamon bun that isn't fatally trapped in a crevice. 16 hours ago:
Spoiler : it’s the cave diving.
I would love to do cave diving. Except every time you hear about an accident, it’s usually some experienced diver who fucked up just a little bit and that meant death… And then like another 1 or 2 people die trying to recover the body.
- Comment on my current daddy fling born in the 1970s 2 days ago:
Can’t argue with that.
- Comment on my current daddy fling born in the 1970s 3 days ago:
I am neither a furry, nor into VR pole dancing, but you should drop us a link for shits and giggles. I’d rather support people doing their weird hobbies for fun instead of meaningless wage slave jobs for misery.
Don’t feel compelled to, if you don’t want to associate your Lemmy profile with your VR furry pole dancing profile, but if you are having fun with it, you should consider sharing it regardless of how good you are, if only to show other people that this thing exists, and they may have fun with it too
- Comment on Data centers get tax breaks. Not you though. 1 week ago:
Eh. In the same line. Close enough.
- Comment on Data centers get tax breaks. Not you though. 1 week ago:
That’s what the “Standard deductible” is on your taxes. Basically “this is what we think it costs to live here for a year, so this money doesn’t count towards your taxes.”
- Comment on Data centers get tax breaks. Not you though. 1 week ago:
What we really need to do is hold corruption politicians and the businesses that are paying them accountable for 150% of the damages from their schemes. None of this “I took a 5 million dollar bribe and I got 6 months house arrest plus a 1500 dollar fine.”
- Comment on Data centers get tax breaks. Not you though. 1 week ago:
Translation :
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
Pretty much every thing about it.
It’s a weird maneuver. People get into the passing lane to pass. If you get into the passing lane and hit the brakes, you are just asking to confuse the people behind you.
It sends confusing information to the prople behind you. If I see the car ahead of me hop out of lane while clearly not in a passing situation, it’s usually because there is something hazardous in the road, and I need to dodge it as well, I’d be moving out of lane pretty much the exact moment you started slamming your brakes.
You have less visibility behind you than you do in front, making the maneuver much more dangerous. You might be popping out of lane to do your “Reverse lane change” at the exact moment the person behind you, in or a person behind them decides to pass. You could also get stuck in a situation where you go for the “reverse pass” and realize that there is actually more cars behind you than you expected, and now you’re stuck going slow in the wrong lane with no way to get back over.
Cars can (almost) always brake faster than they can accelerate. If you need to get back into your spot original place because it is unsafe to complete the pass, it’s a lot easier to slow down to get back to it, than it is to accelerate to get back to it.
Don’t “reverse pass”. In fact, you really should pull your post or edit it to advise people not to do it. It’s illegal, it’s dangerous and it will get people hurt or killed. This is not a joke or a shit-post. I’m dead serious.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
Reverse passing is just like it sounds - passing in reverse. You enter the left lane, slow down rapidly, and then move back over. You force the driver behind you to pass you whether they want to or not.
No no no. God sweet Jesus no. NEVER EVER DO THAT.
If you want someone to pass you, here is what you do. Wait until there is a clear stretch of road for them to pass on, and move your car as far to the right as possible so they can see around you easily, and then let them pass if they want to. If you really want to encourage them, slow down just a tad, maybe 3-5 mph, and if that doesn’t work, throw on your hazards too.
- Comment on Flipper!! 2 weeks ago:
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clipping are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
- Comment on Praise Helix 3 weeks ago:
I think there is a other layer to this. The image in question (I think) is showing how a birdoid body in flight avoids adverse yaw when banking for turns. That is done by managing the tip vortices in such a way to create a proverse yaw force. Quite literally, by befriending the spirals.
- Comment on intruder alert 3 weeks ago:
Fuck that noise.
You want a fight? You better be blasting Duel of the Fates, otherwise I don’t want any.
- Comment on What character is the king of plot armor? 4 weeks ago:
Spartan 117 from Halo. It’s pretty explicitly said that he has luck on his side. Hypothetically, he’s quantum immortal (we might all be actually) and the checkpoint system in the games is based around this immortality.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 4 weeks ago:
That’s… One way to look at it. On the other hand, if I were an employer, should I be required to keep people on payroll if they were going around saying “I work for Bytemeister, and I think Hitler was right and we should have exterminated the Jews”? That’s going to affect my business badly, it’s going to cost me my quality of life, if not my entire business.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 4 weeks ago:
Perhaps both of them harm (or help) different parties by different amounts. So maybe a system where “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” looks like a common sense framework, but when scrutinized reveals that it doesn’t really stand for anything at all.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 4 weeks ago:
Ah, so it would have been harmful to vote against it.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 5 weeks ago:
Or choose not to do business with them, or choose not to help them on the side of the road, or choose not to invite them to your parties, or choose not to let them on your property, or choose to sign them up for all the useless email and mail spam you can find…
Don’t tunnel on one thing. A freedom for everyone means a freedom for the capitalists, and the communists too.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 5 weeks ago:
Charlie Kirk would still be a piece of shit today if he wasn’t out and loud about being a piece of shit.
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 5 weeks ago:
I voted to raise my taxes to fund my local school. Now my neighbors have to pay more in taxes as well… Did I just harm them?
- Comment on Should hate speech be protected under freedom of speech laws? 5 weeks ago:
Or choose not to hire them, or ostracize them.
Hate speech is free speech. So is recording that hate speech and making sure that everyone the bigot knows is aware of their bigotry is free speech too.
- Comment on I guessed 5 weeks ago:
Congrats on posting the most wrong thing I have read today.
Also, are you a writer for Landman?
- Comment on I guessed 5 weeks ago:
Yeah, but all the inattentive parents can now successfully pass on their genes and social values… Which is why we’re seeing a huge age verification push online right now. If those people or their children got mauled or eaten at higher rates then we wouldn’t have this problem.
- Comment on Apple Airpod Subwoofer 5 weeks ago:
It has a cleaning mode, just like the watcha and phone use to eject water from the speakers.
- Comment on American workers are tired of waiting. 1 month ago:
I didn’t actually like the result of the 2016 primary… But I can also tell when one number is bigger than the other, and I know that rule number one is keep trump out of office and rule number two is vote for your best candidate in the primary, and the least worse candidate in the general.
I notice how you ignored the rest of my comment which establishes this as part of a larger pattern of behavior.
Gotta love you saying this, and then immediately taking part of my comment out of context to create a “gotcha” moment I’d expect to see on Fox News.
- Comment on American workers are tired of waiting. 1 month ago:
Democrats successfully argued in court that they do not have to run honest primaries.
Actually, what they argued is that the court and outside groups have no rights to file a lawsuit regarding how the Democrats select their candidates.
Why go through the lengthy trouble of proving a primary was fair, when you can just point out that there is no law that says they have to be. That’s the result of hiring a good lawyer.
- Comment on American workers are tired of waiting. 1 month ago:
Our last primary was just 2 days ago. Hope you didn’t miss that one just like all the others.
- Comment on Your Truck is Stupid Big 1 month ago:
You can haul or tow pretty well with a van. Unless you need a hookup for a goose neck… But those are rare, even for truck bros.
- Comment on Fancy pants 1 month ago:
And a hot pocket is just a savory double-stuff poptart.
- Comment on What would the next pres of USA have to do to gain back trust for America? Hold a televised event saying the last person was just a fuck up? 1 month ago:
I don’t think the Democrats can be reformed until the Republicans party is eliminated, or ranked choice voting is enacted nation-wide.
We can’t take risks on more progressive candidates when a loss results in a literal child-raping Nazi getting elected instead.
This isn’t a “no, you’re wrong” rebuke, but a “yes, but first…” agreement.
- Comment on What would the next pres of USA have to do to gain back trust for America? Hold a televised event saying the last person was just a fuck up? 1 month ago:
I’ve been thinking about it. It’s not good enough to say “Sorry, last guy was a dipshit.” Especially since the majority of people in the US think he is a dipshit right now.
I think we would need to remove said dipshit from power, and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. Then remove anyone who knew he was a dipshit and had responsibility to say/do something about it, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law where appropriate. Then find anyone that supported the dipshit in exchange for favors from the dipshit, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
After all that, then we need to get laws in place that prevent this kind of dipshittery from happening again. Specifically, we need heavy penalties for election campaign finance and ethics violations. Ranked choice voting seems like a pretty good way to prevent us from having to a choose between the two least likeable assholes in the country to lead us. Big money needs to be out of politics, remove Cirizens United, remove the ability of corporations to make campaign contributions, and maybe even make campaign finances be paid out of a government fund where each a candidate gets an equal amount.
Once we’ve removed the dipshits, and prevented the possibility of a dipshit getting elected again, the last ingredient for this redemption recipe is time. People aren’t just going to forget what has happened. We need to demonstrate consistent stability and sanity in both our foreign and domestic politics for at least a decade or two.
I don’t think all of this will happen TBH. A more realistic redemption is a complete restructure of the United States, and probably a separation into a few different countries, varying in sanity from a solarpunk future state to the religious-zealot-lead redneckistan.