Kobolds with a keyboard.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where I have beef with you. I create a second account and block you. I use this account to scout your posts, then using that other account, I go to all of the posts you’re commenting on, and post comments calling you out for being… I don’t know, whatever nasty thing I want to call you out for. Because that account has blocked you, you can’t see those posts (and presumably not the replies to them, either), and can’t defend yourself.
What problem have we solved?
I guess there is a downside of if so many of the sane users block the same nutjobs, then there won’t be anybody to downvote or refute those nutjobs
This has nothing to do with the block system. No matter how it worked, this would be the case. What you’re describing isn’t a block system, it’s moderation, which we still have (though it’s obviously up to the moderators of any given community). That is to say, blocking only affects what you see. Moderation affects what everyone sees, which is what you’re talking about here.
There’s no block system on the whole of the internet that prevents that. Even if they couldn’t reply to your comments, they could reply to anyone else’s, or post a top-level comment, or make their own post entirely. What do you propose? Don’t let them even type your name?
The next few books are great, but around the middle of the series it really drug for me. There’s a huge number of characters to keep track of and a lot of simultaneous storylines going on, and while some of them are great, some of them are rather dry, and the dry ones always seem to get brought up right when the good ones are reaching a climax. Once you get past those few books, it gets good again, and Brandon Sanderson’s books at the end are excellent.
If you’re in the mood for a fantasy epic (with all the baggage that entails), it’s worth the read. There’s also audio books of the whole series and the readers are excellent.
The Eye of the World, the first book in the Wheel of Time series. There were other books I really liked prior to that, but I distinctly remember reading that one on a long road trip I was stuck on with my parents, and being just completely enthralled by it. Made a 14 hour car ride feel like nothing.
The series ultimately led to discovering Brandon Sanderson as an author (when he took over for the last 3 books in the series), which led to a lot more really memorable, beloved reads, so that’s a nice added bonus.
Having never heard of that show, I clicked that link fully expecting a horrible TV adaptation of the SNES era fighting game, and was wholly disappointed.
Anything that provides a service rather than sells a product. This would likely take the form of an app or website that people subscribe to or purchase, but could also be services like copy or video editing, voice work or the like.
Wow. Someone recently tried to tell me this joke in person. The conversation went like this:
Them: “I’m only friends with 25 of the letters of the alphabet.”
Me: “Why’s that?”
Them: “I don’t know.”
I was completely confused by the interaction. This makes so much more sense.
I’m not a medical professional nor do I use hearing aids, so I might be misinterpreting the situation here, but are the speakers actually the problem? Presumably the other nurse’s headphones were capable of playing the sounds in that range; the problem was your hearing aid. How does having another speaker playing those same sounds help, if your hearing aid still isn’t able to correctly handle them?
It seems like what you’d actually need is something that can take in the sounds in the 20-100 hz range, but play them back in the 100-3000 hz range, so your hearing aid can pick them up, no?
End Users: “This software is buggy, their QA must suck!”
The term is connected to misogyny. If someone just wants to give up dating and that’s the end of it, there’s no reason for anyone to be ticked off by that idea. It’s the doomer attitude surrounding it and the effects of it that cause problems. You used the term ‘black pill’, which has specific connotations - it’s not simply choosing to give up dating.
The term black pill, first popularized in the 2010s on the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt, refers to accepting the futility of fighting against a feminist system. Blackpilled incels are encouraged to either commit suicide or “go ER”/be a “hERo,” referencing Elliot Rodger’s 2014 Isla Vista murder spree that has been called an act of misogynistic terrorism.
(Source: Britannica)
At the low, low price of €5 per character? Zero chance of that happening.
Both Window and Face link to this page.
Am I missing something here? The links seem to have no relevance to the word they’re linked from; if that’s the intent, what’s even the point of making them linked from words in Ulysses? Further, out of the ~20 links you have here, there’s already a duplicate link.
So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?
On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.
Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.
My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?
Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.
I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.
Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person’s happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can’t both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)
Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.
To be clear I’m not saying it’s a solution, just that the proposed solution isn’t actually one, either. At the end of the day, it’s not possible to both do what OP is asking for and not also make block lists public, so it’s all academic at this point.