tldr but I am outraged by the existence of this comment.
Considering how few people block all scripts, this could also make it trivial for them to fingerprint you.
It gives you an early signal that the relationship won't work out if the other party decides to contribute nothing for no reason other than to have their cake and eat it too.
I'm of the belief that when it comes to relationships, if you're thinking about it transactionally, then you're doing things wrong. As long as being together is a net positive for both parties, then it doesn't matter if one contributes more than the other.
On a more pragmatic note, you can contribute a lot through non-financial means and these are difficult to quantify, so it's simply not worth the effort to do that kind of bean counting. If you don't feel that they're pulling their weight, then you talk about it and make some adjustments.
It might not make sense to be wearing red and say that you're a little bit rainbow, but it does make sense to wear a desaturated red and say that you're a little bit red. To that point, I like to compare it to visual acuity. Everyone's vision lies somewhere on the gradation of 20/20 or better up to complete blindness where absolutely no visual signal reaches your brain. Saying that everyone has a little bit of trouble with social situations is akin to saying that everyone is a little bit blind.
Sometimes I take half a day considering just how to address and sign an email.
I can definitely relate. It also takes a lot longer to craft an email to contain all the relevant information. If you miss something, that's potentially several hours or days of back and forth to get everything sorted out and plus the need to context switch each time. If you do a phone call, the context switching happens once and it gives you the freedom to go "I need help but I don't know exactly how to describe the problem or what information you need" and the other party can help fill in the blanks for you.
Ever meet a kid that wanted to be a cop? Why do you think they had such aspirations? Surely not to uphold the status quo and maintain the power structures in our society. They're idealistic kids who think they'll be helping make the world a better place. That dream doesn't suddenly die for everyone upon reaching adulthood. Would it be effective? Maybe not. But it's not like people don't make poor life decisions all the time.
You told me that you're judging them for their chosen profession. Admittedly, I may be lacking in imagination here, but I don't see what other information you could be basing these judgements on if it's not their public behaviour or knowing literally every single person who's ever wanted to be a cop and their motivation. The filtering process is irrelevant when we're talking about the decision to go through the process at all.
You can't imagine changing the system so that it stops being oppressive?
Selection bias. You're basing this on what you know of active cops. The ones who died were not active cops.
I've just been using a plain old pair of scissors
For all we know, they could be the ones who tried to be the change we all want to see and thus got purposely weeded out.
If there's insufficient space around it, then it'll never spawn anything. This can be useful if you want to keep a specific spawner around for capture later but don't want too spend resources on killing the constant stream of biters.
view more: next ›
If we have this data for each election, someone could also compile statistics on how well each party follows through with their promises. Ideally weighted by how much voters care about each promise.