kryptonianCodeMonkey

@kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The regrets of life⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I think she’s about 20

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The regrets of life⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s an older picture. Her name is Elizabeth Riley. She doesn’t post much anymore, but she’s still got some good stuff on her Onlyfans page (https://onlyfans.com/lizrileyxo)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Isn't Batman's questioning Superman because he is an unknown entity basically the same reason Lex Luthor has against Superman?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Batman questions anyone and anything and has a plan for any eventuality, PARTICULARY those that pose a global scale threat. It’s nothing personal, it’s just reasonable precaution. That’s basically his true superpower. He also does trust Superman as a person, as a colleague and friend. I don’t think he ever considers there to be a true risk that Superman turns on humanity of his own will. However, Superman is susceptible to mind control, to magic, to unpredictable forms of kryptonite. And he is not the only living Kryptonian in existence either. It would be stupid not to plan for such threats.

  Lex depending on the version, may or may not think that Superman actually poses a willful threat to humanity. But even if he also trusts that Superman is what he appears to be, a selfless hero that only wants to help people, he probably hates that idea even more. He usually doesn’t distrust Superman’s intent. He hates what it says about and does to human-kind, and by extension, himself. He things depending on an alien demigod will make humanity weak and complacent. He thinks that Superman holds the Earth back from reaching their potential. That it permanently neuters them from become Supermen themselves. So he makes it his mission to ruin Superman however he can. If he can kill him, good. Not a problem anymore. If he can publically discredit him, sow distrust across the globe, that’s good too, maybe better. People who distrust him won’t depend on him and may, in fact, fear him. As a result they are more likely to better themselves, their technology, their science, to rival and fight back against Superman.

  TL:DR: Batman takes precautions. Lex hates and attempts to kill or sabotage. They’re not the same.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨MD = oMega Dumbass⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Antibodies are LITERALLY the point. It’s the mechanism by which our immune system identifies pathogens and triggers an immune response to them. If they diminish, your immune system is slower to respond and less effective at doing so. If they’re gone, it’s a of your immune system has never seen the pathogen before and has to adapt from zero again. Vaccines are a way to arm you with those antibodies without as much risk either from genuine infection or your immune system killing you in the attempt to figure out how to kill the new pathogen.

  TL;DR: Vaccine=Antibodies=Good

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨F*ck off Arnie, you're out of your element!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  No it wasn’t. Gerrymandering that demonstrably targeted racial or other protected demographics or otherwise broke the voting rights act was illegal. But gerrymandering as a concept has never been illegal in the US. State and federal courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled several times that there is no constitutional law against it, nor a mechanism to objectively identify it, nor a means to remedy it. If it violates those other laws in the process, it gets rejected and kicked back to be fixed. But if not, there is nothing illegal about it under current law, despite it being blatant vote manipulation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨F*ck off Arnie, you're out of your element!⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s regulated per state. What Texas is doing, while highly unethical and, frankly, fraudulent, is entirely legal and up to the Texas state legislature to decide. Only the federal government may supersede it and only with a change to the constitution which prescribes this power to the states. So, for the Texas legislature, yes it’s easier to modify the law. To change it without them, it is absolutely not easier.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK: US Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem publically bragged about killing her puppy⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Stuff removed, stuff added, everything pulled tight. It’s like taxidermy but for still alive vanity-obsessed women, and it often looks like it too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Trump says he plans to put a 100% tariff on computer chips, likely pushing up cost of electronics⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, I did mean in the ideal sense, there is a functional purpose for raising the prices of foreign goods IF there is a domestic alternative you wish to boost or expand. But the mechanism for the benefit, IF(big if) there is one, is the increase in price. Tariff = ideally targetted price increases. Saying tariffs might raise prices is like saying stabbing you might wound you. I might have a good reason for wounding you, I might not, but the wounding will happen as a direct consequences of my stabbing you, regardless.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Districts each get a seat. That is the part you are not getting. That is what gerrymandering manipulates. You seem to think that the districts are voting blocks with equal say (1 vote each) in an election of a single seat (thus why you think Blue wins it all) but that is NOT how districting and gerrymandering works in the US. I dont know why you are quoting definitions at me like I dont understand the concept.

  I am not conflating anything. I am deliberately ignoring anything not in the info-graphic that presumably wants to teach us something.

  You specifically brought up that other people are saying that there are better systems, which is exactly what I was responding to and saying you were conflating with the “perfect” term used in the info graphic. So no, this is bull.

  You are the one conflating the abstract presentation on this graphic with some specific real-life situation.

  The abstract presentation in the graphic is a hypothetical that EXPLAINS the real-life situation. Gerrymandering is not a concept in a vacuum. It is a thing that happens and show a simplified version of it here demonstrates how manipulative it is in a digestible way. That is the point. It’s not a mathematical or logical axiom that exists purely in and of itself. It is a pretend situation meant to parallel a real life one and demonstrate a form of political manipulation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The graphic literally illustrates that one of two teams “wins”. In the “perfect” case that is blue.

  They win majority of the district. Not all of the seats. I don’t know why you’re are being so obtuse about this. It’s pretty apparent to everyone else. And it is exactly how districts in real life work

  That is an assumption you are making based on some real world system that is not depicted here.

  Yes, becuase the purpose of this info graphic is to show how Gerrymandering works in real life. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with taking individual seats. Ever. Period. It is about taking outweighed control of a multi-seat body. That is the ENTIRE point of gerrymandering, a subject that is not obscure in the slightest.

  I don’t criticize the result. I just don’t think it’s perfect.

  What then would be the “perfect” result between only two parties running, and 60% support going to the blue party? Whether for 1 seat or for 5 as IS SHOWN in this graphic?

  People here keep telling me the system is bad but it’s the best we have.
  If that is your definition of perfect that I suppose we just have a vastly different understanding of perfection.

  I most certianly did not say that this is the best system we could have, but you confusion is because you are conflating vastly different things. When people are talking about different voting systems that would be better, that assumes that there is more than 2 choices in the matter. If there are only two, such as is in this example, the voting system resolves to being identical to First Past The Post, so it doesnt matter, FOR THIS ONE EXAMPLE. In real life, things are not that simple, but that doesnt matter when we are talking about a simplified hypothetical like this. That is the point.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Trump says he plans to put a 100% tariff on computer chips, likely pushing up cost of electronics⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  What do you mean “likely pushing up cost of electronics”. That is the literal point of a tariff, to push the process up and make competing goods more appealing to consumers. The only way it doesnt raise prices is if importers just eat the cost, which they will almost certainly not do and, frankly, shouldn’t do.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Your example is literally what is being illustrated. There is some disconnect you are suffering. There are 5 districts with 5 seats and depending on how you divide the districts, fairly or intentionally gerrymandered, you can get a fair outcome or outcomes that heavily favor one party.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.

  Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?

  No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue one the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for thr love of god!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  As I said elsewhere, if there is only two parties/candidates running for each of these seats and the districts are divided this way then there is no functional difference between Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, or First Past The Post. The results would be 100% identical in any of those systems. In this specific situation, the result is “perfect”, as it says. Under different circumstances, it would be less than perfect, but that is not how hypothetical work, my guy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  What do you think “districts” means? Each district gets representing for the whole body, whatever body that may be. If you need that explained to you, okay, but don’t then lecture others on minutae of semantics when you arent familiar with what the word “district” entails.

  And the U.S. President is not elected like this, no. There is no districting involved in US Presidential elections, at least not currently and not directly. It is far stupider than that, unfortunately. Each state has so many districts on the federal level based on population of the whole state (minimum 1), and each district gets a federal representative in the US House of Representatives wing of congress. Each state also gets 2 and only 2 Senate seats regardless of population in that wing of congress. The Presidency is actually determined by the votes of Electors in the Electoral College. Each state gets as many Electors as they have seats in both the Senate and House, and it has nothing to do with how the districts in that state are subdivided or what party their Representatives are from.

  Now, each state gets to determine for itself how they run their elections, how they assign their Electors, and even whether their electors are required to vote the same way as their state, so things can be pretty complicated. In many states, it is winner take all for that state’s Electors, with the winner being the one with the plurality of votes in a FPTP election, which is dumb as fuck. Some others assign their Electors proportionally. There is even a slowly growing coalition of states that, once they reach a plurality of Electors in the coalition, have agreed to no longer assign their Electors on a state by state basis, but on the national popular vote instead. Again, within each of these states, rules differ on the relative power of the Electors themselves to vote according to their own desires even if that goes against the state’s popular vote. It’s a giant fucking mess, it leads many many people in hard red or blue states to just to just not bother as their vote will be overwhelmed anyway, which is why the Electoral College should just be eliminated and replaced with a national popular vote. But that is a whole other story.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.

  Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (cuz what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but of the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result. But anything is better than FPTP.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.

  Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  When there is one seat, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiplw district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It isn’t actually, not in all cases. There is nothing in the constitution preventing it and the Supreme Court and state courts have said that there is no mechanism in place to either identify it objectively, nor to remedy it if found, with a few exceptions. The biggest exceptions are where it violates the Voting Rights Act or otherwise demonstrably discriminates on the basis of racial demographics, in which case it can be kicked back to the legislature with the directive to try to be less racist this time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨W.a.m.d.i.i.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I bet gay men when don’t like coffee love that joke.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Florida sues some of the biggest porn platforms, accusing them of not complying with the state's age verification law⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Easier to target the few dozen major sources than the millions of users for now. But I agree wholeheartedly with the premise. They’re not setting up a shop in Florida. They’re in entirely different places around the world and Floridians are virtually knocking on their door and taking their digital packages with them back to Florida. Why would the onus be on the server to police the laws local to each client?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Jack Black ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Freaky…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Avatar (the one with the blue aliens) is such a weird franchise⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Agree to disagree.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Avatar (the one with the blue aliens) is such a weird franchise⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not “shit.” That’s just an over correction to its relative success for its mediocrity. Excluding the visuals, it’s fine. It’s not stellar, not terrible, just… fine. Simple. There are plenty of worse movie plots, dialogue and acting out there. It’s nowhere near unwatchable.

  It’s a vehicle for the visuals and technology showcasing on a basic film frame, yes. But, it’s allowed to be really good at one thing and appreciated for that.

  Like a plain chip in some bomb-ass dip. You could’ve scooped it on a dirty shoe and someone would have licked it clean. But, you gave me a plain chip instead, which is better… even if boring. So, thanks.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Done with being the one in charge of maintaining friendships⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  3 points to remember.

  1. If you miss someone, are thinking about them, or just feel compelled to let them know that they matter to you, get in touch. Don’t make a big deal out of it. Just text, email, or call to say hi. You dont have to expect reciprocity, to make plans, or any big gestures. You thought about them for a reason and you should just touch base and let them know that. That’s how friendships work.

  2. If you feel like you are obligated to connect with them, like it is a chore, like you are putting energy into something that you are not getting anything out of, that is not fulfilling your need or want for companionship, etc., explore why that is and remedy it. That might mean having a frank conversation with the friend about how you feel. That might mean establishing healthy boundaries or expectations. That might mean putting that friendship at a lower priority or leaving it behind. Just take steps to keep everything healthy.

  3. If you find yourself thinking “It’s their turn to call”, “They’re the ones that are always too busy to hang out, so it should be on them to reach out when they are free”, “They didnt say thank you for the thing I did for them”, etc., then you are part of the problem that needs to be fixed. Friendships arent meant to be transactional, someone else’s job, or an entitlement. You need to re-examine your behavior and the way you see the other person if you feel those things.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Trained on r/relationshipadvice, I see. Surprised it didnt say to divorce her ass for a minor slight.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Old Man Guide to Grooming⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  First time I went to my last barber, he was almost done cutting my hair and said “do you want me to trim your eyebrows?”

  I said, “hmm, no, I think they’re alright.”

  He stared for a couple seconds. Then said, “…Imma trim them.” And that’s how I got my first eyebrow trim.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨In China, delivery robots now ride the subway to restock 7-Eleven stores⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Just because it’s the US doesn’t mean it’s not bigoted to generalize people, especially with such insulting and hateful generalizations. And Chinese companies are as motivated by capitalism as any company is, which means maximizing cost efficiency. Putting policies in place to protect other priorities for the public good is sensible no matter where you are.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Donald Trump Said He Promised Ivanka He Wouldn't Date Girls Younger Than Her | “So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.” 😬⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  So to his 17 year old (or younger) had to get her dad to promise not to “date” girls her age or younger than her. Presuming she solicited this promise because, at a minimum, it was already a danger of happening, if not, indeed, had happened or was happening. And she was fully aware of that fact… yikes.