ObjectivityIncarnate

The OP says “doesn’t work”, not ‘does work but not enough to satisfy an arbitrary threshold of “working for a living” so it doesn’t count’.

Nobody is saying owners do literally no labor

The OP literally says “doesn’t work”. Is “doesn’t work” not equivalent to “no labor”?

It’s just a running joke for greentexts to call them “fake and gay”, which became having to come up with some justification to attach both labels to the story instead of just saying it is. This is completely regardless of what the greentext actually consists of.

The more you have to stretch to make the labels fit, the funnier it is.

No one is actually worshiping him, it’s just a meme, relax.

Also this image is probably older than his being a billionaire, it has to do with Steam, not his net worth.

Brainstorming: maybe make it mandatory only when a review is about performance of the game, because that’s when it’s relevant. Maybe a checkbox as you’re writing a negative review that’s something like ‘what aspect(s) of the game don’t you like’, and if ‘performance’ is checked, a little addendum that says ‘your specs will be added to the review to give context’. In that case, people who want to look through reviews would also be able to filter by those same ‘types’ of reviews, or see what percentage of negative reviews are due to performance, or other things. Could be a good addition overall.

But generally, if someone wants to write a bad review because of shitty controls, or plot, or the game being too short for its price, etc., there’s no need to have specs attached to that kind of review.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all the replies are misunderstanding you as saying ‘who has so much RAM’, when you’re actually referring to 30 being a bizarre total number of GB of RAM to have.

I can’t even think of a combo of (certainly-mismatched) sticks of RAM that’d get you to 30 even. 8-8-8-6?

few

Did you know there are well over 1,000 billionaires in the US? Have even 10 of them been implicated in the files, that you can name?

I’d say it’s more likely that a significant majority of them aren’t.

if the top 1% paid a fractionof the taxes they used to.

Could you give an example of a year in which the top 1% paid enough taxes to satisfy this condition?

Source?

Threatening to shoot and kill someone if they don’t give you what you want, even if the victim is not aware you’re not actually armed, definitely counts, don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

Also, I quoted that exact line in my own comment, why are you bringing that up in your reply as if it’s information I concealed/withheld or something?

I did some digging, and the mastermind of the scheme Allen was involved in (who he helped investigators nail, one of the main reasons his sentence was reduced) was sentenced to 30 years. However, he was only forced to hand over a paltry $38.5 million, out of $3 billion?! Barely 1% of the defrauded amount!

Seems like it’d be pretty straightforward to, as a rule, penalize for the entire ‘profit’ of the fraud as a baseline, then you can add the fee (otherwise, you’d still just be breaking even if caught) on top of that.

Some things to consider, for those interested in objectivity:

• We have basically no background info on Roy Brown (the homeless guy), no idea about prior convictions etc. that may have influenced the sentencing. Bizarrely, the actual crime on the books in Louisiana, where he committed it, has a massive sentencing range, of 3 to 40 years. This seems to be the one and only primary source for this info at all. Also, his was a violent crime,^[1] which tend to carry harsher sentences compared to non-violent, regardless of the type of crime.
• Allen took one of those ‘help us fry the bigger fish and we’ll go easy on you’^[2] deals from investigators, and as a result, prosecutors weren’t even seeking anything close to 15 years. Said bigger fish got 30 years.
• The laws, including sentencing minimums etc., aren’t exactly the same in Virginia (Allen) and Lousiana (Brown).

P.S. The Snopes article on this is 15 years old, so imagine the age of the actual screenshot.

And do you know how history refers to those people?

How they’re referred to does not imply that they ought to be referred to that way.

it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].

No, it literally is not.

Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?

It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”

This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.

A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”

Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.

But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.^[1]

What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?

And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.

It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?

You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.

Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.

she tried to run over the cop and/or thats what he thought when he fired, anyway

Even if this was true, it’s honestly irrelevant. You’re not supposed to fire upon the driver of a running/moving vehicle period, lest the vehicle become an ‘unguided missile’ (via dead weight pressing on the accelerator) that can cause who knows how much more damage.

ICE’s own rules explicitly prohibit it, I saw someone citing them earlier.

The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.

Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.

If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.

I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.

Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.

people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.

I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.

When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.

The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.

I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything

Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.

How do you get a mortgage in the US if you’ve never had ANY credit before?

You could have googled this in less time than it took you to ask the question.

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/can-you-get-a-mortgage-with-no-credit/