Most varieties of stone (cobble, concrete, brick, etc.) are very expensive, especially in comparison to lumber in places where tree farms are plentiful.

Also, idk if you’ve seen a modern wood house, but they’re practically hollow, save for fiberglass insulation. They use far less material than stone buildings.

Or they’re interpreting the law as written without context so they can get home by lunch, just like every other originalist.

Gas demand is absolutely price sensitive lol

Not if you plan to rape the corpse, which this person apparently did.

Well, sure, the other half of the joke is that the speaker is a literal psychopath, thus the Patrick Bateman. You don’t start reading a meme expecting it to be psychopathic.

Also, I’m not sure you could call that the “plan” considering there was a 50% chance the speaker would have been dead at the end of the game.

Sorry, that’s not an explanation, that’s a new joke.

I’m pretty sure it is. Feel free to explain why it isn’t, and I’ll respond to that,

And the way you “play” russian roulette is as a torture method with a prisoner. That’s where it comes from, and there is no established way to “play”

Where are you getting this from? I have found absolutely no evidence to support this, and lots of evidence to the contrary. By all accounts, you take turns holding the revolver up to your own head of your own free will.

If you think the players take turns shooting at each other, that seems to be a particular variant called Russian poker, and it’s depiction in media is relatively uncommon in my experience.

it treats the woman as a prop on so many levels

Yes, I don’t think anyone disagrees with you here. IMO, the rule of thumb is, “Would it be equally funny if the genders were swapped?”, and IMO, the answer is “yes” in this case, because the joke doesn’t rely on sexism.

The woman in this story has no agency whatsoever

Except for agreeing to play Russian roulette. Surely both parties were aware of the odds of their demise.

even when she’s offering sex in the setup it’s just a weird incel fantasy that would never happen.

And now we’ve arrived at the cringiest part of the meme. It’s a pretty lame setup that indeed relies on dialogue that would never happen IRL. I guess that’s why it’s a !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world.

Edit: on second thought, I have officially spent too much time dissecting this mid-tier garbage, and unless you can accept the fact that you misunderstood the premise of Russian roulette, I won’t be continuing this conversation.

The core of the joke is that Russian roulette is a terrible game to play if you intend to do anything after it.

he killed her

That’s not how you play Russian roulette, btw

Not to be confused with Microsoft Copilot, which I have yet to find a use for. Do you not like GH Copilot either?

That GitHub Copilot and friends are useful? I would argue that their utility is rather subjective, but there are indications that it improves developer productivity.

I’m unsure if you’ve used tools like GH Copilot before, but it primarily operates through “completions” (“spicy autocorrect” in its truest form) rather than a chatbot-like interface. It’s mostly good for filling out boilerplate and code that has a single obvious solution; not game-changing intelligence by any means, but useful in relieving the programmer of various menial tasks.

May I ask, what evidence are you hoping to see in particular?

It doesn’t do that, either. LLMs retain the linguistic patterns found in textbooks, nothing more. It’s remarkable that they can do so much with this information alone, but it’s still a far cry from genuine intelligence.

I mean, it’s not shit at everything; it can be quite useful in the right context (GitHub Copilot is a prime example). Still, it doesn’t surprise me that these first-party LLM benchmarks are full of smoke and mirrors.

By “outside agitators” they mean people who aren’t affiliated with the university. I can’t speak for Columbia specifically, but I wouldn’t characterize the non-university-affiliated protestors that were at my university as “agitators” any more than the university-affiliated protestors were.

“I feel more masculine in the summertime. I wear more masculine clothing, I wear shorts. I normally have my hair up more and I just feel more ‘boy’, whereas in the winter – for some reason – girl mode comes out and I’m loving skirts and dresses and having my hair down.”

This is from a video that the Fox story is about. Fox totally missed the point, I’m guessing intentionally so.

But can we talk about that statement for a second? (I’m leftist af and I strongly believe trans people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, just like everybody else; this has nothing to do with that.) I’m having a hard time accepting this statement.

I would obviously never support the misogynistic belief that women should (only) wear skirts/dresses. But as it turns out, the idea that dresses and long hair are inherently feminine (or that shorts and short hair are inherently masculine) also makes me uncomfortable. I recognize that a lot of people see it that way, but I don’t think that makes it right, or a belief that should continue to propagate.

I’m a dude, and I hope to see a day where I can grow out my hair and wear a dress without people assuming it means anything about me beyond that I like dresses and long hair.

(Please let me know if this is insensitive and I will remove my comment. I’m not interested in starting an unproductive or hateful discussion here)

I doubt that. Paper losses are not an indicator of profitability.

I mean, futures have an effective place in capitalist societies; the onion market is rather volatile because onion futures are banned (for hilarious reasons, I might add). The volatility makes is more difficult to run a sustainable onion farming operation.

As for these water futures, while the concept does seem repulsive to me, I don’t really understand how they are responsible for anything here. If water futures were illegal, water suppliers would still be charging a huge markup today. Water companies sold undervalued futures years(?) ago, and they’re the only ones really losing out here. No skin off my back.

(I think that everything I just said is stupid btw. Don’t take this as a defense of the “system”.)

Given those are the only documents this ruling entitles the AG to, it sounds like statistics are all he’s gonna get.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage?time=2017..latest

Just so you know, you may get fucked financially if your wife dies (or vice versa). I would look into it.

Them:

I’m not trying to defend this price

You:

You are defending a company

Well done.

What did I miss?

The benefits massively outweigh the risks when it comes to open source ad blockers (lets be honest, we’re all talking about uBO), but limiting your attack surface is a very widely practiced concept in cubersecurity, and there’s no situation where it is totally without merit.

They also underestimate how many times I’ve watched my favorite movie lol