And the human implementation is why people have been arguing with you this whole time. Because he wasn’t executed using proper asphyxiation like that suicide pod (not that execution in itself is morally acceptable anyways), they just slapped a mask on him that was hooked up to a tank of nitrogen.

Even the people watching it found it traumatic because he struggled and thrashed pretty much the whole time.

Except they’re not filtering out the carbon dioxide, so you’re suffocating in a mix of your own exhalation plus the nitrogen.

Maybe read the part where the dude struggled for 8 minutes before he finally died.

Yes. That’s the remnants of a massive hurricane that just pushed through Florida. Hurricanes sometimes bring salt water with them in the form of rain many miles away from the coast. When I was very young, there was one time where there was a massive hurricane here that was bad enough that we were evacuated, and when we came back, the glass door at my dad’s office was covered in so much salt that it looked like frosted glass. And that office was miles away from the beaches.

This is basically the only time those idiots with the “Salt Life” stickers hundreds of miles from the coast will see salt water.

Since when is 8 minutes of fighting against your restraints and desperately gasping for air “a very short time period?”

Being strangled to death with a piece of rope would take less time than that. A proper chokehold with your bare hands to deny oxygen to the brain would’ve killed him in about a minute.

Advertising or scams usually. A high amount of posts, comments, and karma makes an account look trustworthy.

The only way these “play to earn” games can work is as a pyramid scheme. Everybody wants more money out of the pot than they’re putting in, and the company sure as hell isn’t going to run at a loss. Many of them seem to only deal with currency through their own exchange (for fiat currency directly) or through markets backed by coins that are also backed by fiat currency, like bitcoin, for exactly the reasons that you laid out. Can’t make money if everybody is buying your funny money with other funny money that lost 99% of its value 3 months after it appeared.

The only other way somebody could make this work is if the players are the product, but at that point, why wouldn’t you just sell ad space on a website.

You’re right - only the NYPD should be killing groups of people on the subway.

Third time’s the charm?

There’s a train bridge like that in my hometown, but it’s directly over the base of a fairly steep hill. Pretty much anything bigger than a work van is likely to hit it, and I’ve seen a couple of box trucks with the top 6 inches or so of their roof peeled back like a half-open can of sardines.

Like a record, baby.

Found the Republican

For perspective, one of the states in the southwest (I think New Mexico) tried to pass a similar ban and it got overruled by a judge because it was found that it would affect a total of 4 girls in the entire state, and the judge felt that that violated the federal law that says that you can’t make a law that targets specific people (ie you can’t make it illegal for Mike and Jerry specifically to join the basketball team).

Didn’t you know? According to Republicans, “Reality has a liberal bias.”

It’s Doritos all the way down?

Always has been.

There’s a difference between having Dorito dust on your fingers and having it massaged/injected into your skin via microneedling. It’s closer to “don’t tattoo yourself with Dorito dust” than it is “don’t let it get on you.”

Yep, they literally cannot work any other way than as a ponzi scheme. Because the people “earning” want to take more money out of the system than they put in, and the company is taking money out as well just to keep the game running and the employees paid, as well as to make a profit. So you need substantially more suckers buying into the system than the money that is being paid out.

Eventually, somebody is gonna be left holding an empty bag.

I just bought a forester a few months ago, and my 2 stipulations on the cars I was looking at were all-wheel drive because I live in snow country, and a car no newer than 2018 (IIRC) because that was the year car companies largely switched from manual controls to a 16-inch screen with everything, including climate control, accessed from an app.

When I was talking to the guy at the dealership I bought it from and mentioned how much I disliked the new screens, he outright said, “Yeah, a lot of people don’t like them.”

This is an extremist take on a correct conclusion. Just like how “vote with your wallet” and “no ethical consumption under capitalism” can co-exist, so can the idea that there are people in these jobs who simply don’t care about the harm as well as people who do but don’t have the power to do anything about it - even something as simple as changing jobs.

An easy example is the people left at Twitter. When employees started quitting in droves after Musk started tearing the company apart, I saw people quickly theorizing that the people still working there fell into 2 groups: those who were morally bankrupt enough not to care, and those on work visas who couldn’t quit because they risked being deported.

The majority of these companies are based in the US, where workers’ rights and protections are often tenuous at best. Whistleblowers have almost no protections and, more often than not, end up serving years or even lifetime sentences in federal jails for their efforts. In most states, it is completely legal for companies to fire you for whatever reason they feel like, and even if you get severance, it can take years of legal battles to get what you’re owed. Add to that how long it can take to find a new job (the average time in the video game industry is 2 months), and it’s easy to see how that can quickly spiral into putting people into a dangerous financial situation for daring to speak out.

It’s easy to lay the blame at other people’s feet, but just like saying, “Well, just don’t use their products then,” it’s never that simple.

“No ethical consumption under capitalism” is the new “just following orders.” If you can afford the product, you can afford to buy something more ethical.

Sure, but if you really cared, then you’d put in the effort. Or are you “just following orders”?

The point is that he blames the people working for these companies with a blanket statement while not taking any responsibility for his own agency in the situation. It’s a lot more nuanced than just “why don’t these other people do x.” It’s like “vote with your wallet” vs. “no ethical consumption under capitalism.”