It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?

People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.

They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!

No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?

That TLS handshake went hard

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

3 cups Beef broth, 1/2 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce, 6 sprigs of fresh parsley, 1 gallon of moonshine, 3 carrots.

No way!

The existence of “echo chambers” is debated by scientists. It really doesn’t matter who you hang around with, you’re going to disagree with people.

The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media.

Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?

Echo chamber? What echo chamber? Reviewing the evidence

Yes, except bail bonds don’t exist, bail bondsmen don’t exist, and there isn’t a bail bond system.

In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says anyone accused of a crime is innocent until found guilty and therefore cannot be held in custody unless the state can convince the court that releasing them would be a danger to the public.

Which sounds great, but bail is often denied because courts are easily convinced someone is a danger to the public. There is also a surety system but that’s to ensure someone follows bail conditions. If the court agrees to grant a conditional bail, the accused needs someone to act as their surety. If the accused breaks conditions, and the surety doesn’t immediately report it, the surety will be required to pay the court a very large fine. Not being able to find a surety is a common reason for bail being denied.

The action would have been done as vice-president, not president. Vice-presidents are held accountable. This is why Trump got in trouble for defamation of E. Jean Carroll.

He defamed her as president and called it an official act. The case was put on indefinite hold. Then he said the same things while he wasn’t president. A new case was brought against him and he was found liable. Then, Carroll’s lawyer asked the original case to be resumed arguing that Trump’s statements couldn’t be an official act of the president since he performed the same action while he wasn’t president. The courts agreed and resumed the case and he was found liable again.

And then you click on it and realize you misread NSFL as NSFW

assert IsEven(2) == True
assert IsEven(4) == True
assert IsEven(6) == True

All checks pass. LGTM

The coke

The qualities that make one a good worker do not make for a good CEO. A good worker thinks the best way to make money is to produce better quality product or produce it more efficiently.

A good CEO thinks the best way to make money is to lay off quality control and use their salaries to buy up company stock to increase the stock price for shareholders knowing the increase is instantaneous while the problems caused by not having quality control anymore won’t be realized for months if not years. Even better if they can force employees who didn’t do quality control to now be responsible for it, on top of their regular duties, while receiving no additional pay.

Her name is Light? Like the guy from Death Note?

What up my yingga? (I’m reclaiming the word)

Our profession

Gonna stop you right there Jeff. You’re not a journalist.

The requirement for a steady paycheque is what keeps everyone working in terrible conditions. I’m lucky enough that I’ve always had a lot in savings and it has come in handy a few times. Twice I’ve walked off a job and never went back after failing to negotiate proper working conditions with the boss. Both times I burned through about $10,000 in savings while searching for a new job. Almost nobody has that much saved up. If they did, terrible bosses would lose employees on the regular.

resistance is futile

Superconductors don’t offer much resistance.

“Fake it till you make it” doesn’t mean pretend to be happy until you are happy. I committed to a relationship I wasn’t happy in, a career I wasn’t happy in, and hobbies I wasn’t happy doing, all because I wanted the approval of others. A divorce, career change, and hobby swap made me much happier.