facts, I was looking to buy a used pickup, I’m seeing pickups from the year 2000 going for 8000-11,000, granted these are the high end with low miles for their age, but they are still ancient by vehicle standards.

I feel like we need a lot more of them, so they can be responsible to a reasonably sized group of people.

Right now they represent so many of us they can just pretend to ignore us and only listen to the rich donors.

If there are a thousand reps it gets a lot more expensive to rig elections and buy votes.

Yeah prices have me looking at hybrids tbh, I wish hydrogen fuel cells wouldn’t of petered out so badly int he USA, seems like a great concept.

this exactly, there isn’t an EV I could afford without a massive loan, in the United States, really interested in seeing how the Slate turns out tho, I have high hopes and low expectations.

thanks for the info, unable to get there via work permits or ancestry, but would love to be a Canadian lol, one day maybe.

Isn’t this what jeff Bezos is doing with fractional real estate investment, except evil?

Not pooping on the idea, I would totally toss money towards a fractional mortgage to help someone else get a home, just noting how the upside down universe version of this idea is already out there.

sauc: https://arrived.com/

gosh darnit I sure hope so, I replay BB every year at Halloween, and every year it feels just a little bit more dated, although I think its more the FPS and lighting that bother me now, as much as RTX can be a gimmick, the way Bloodborne paints with light could be an excellent showcase of RTX done right.

Did you have an ancestor to help with Canadian citizenship, or are you actively pursuing that through a career path?

How about they remake the game while they are at it?!?

I feel like this film could be a hit, but I will not hold my breath.

Does anyone know what Septic eye has made previously? I see he cameo’d in Free Guy, but do not see any indication he worked on the movie otherwise.

I did not intend to ever say you can have personalized advertisements without invading someone’s privacy, I’m not sure what I wrote that you interpreted that way, possibly my discussion about how I feel the current ads are not always relevant?

Either way, I stated that advertisers should utilize the content of the website or the content being viewed as a method to advertise, which does not involve invasions of privacy.

Or maybe it was when I said “you don’t need to invade someones privacy to advertise to them”

That is me saying, you can have advertisements that are meant for a specific group, and believe that someone is part of that group based on them visiting a website, without invading their privacy.

Its how newspapers did advertisements, its why magazines existed - to sell ad space for specific interest groups. People also give away data by signing up for websites, interest groups, or ordering things, all data that can be harvested without entering my computer or invading my privacy.

this hits it for me, thank you, I came to the understanding above that I had been painted this exact picture when I was younger, but learned better in college.

I think I was a bit blind to the fact that some people still paint the absurd picture of feminists shown above, I forget how far we still have to go as a species sometimes.

totally agree and this experience does make sense to me, people paint feminists very broadly and stupidly - personal anecdote I remember being blown away in college that being a feminist could simply mean supporting the right for women to vote, have equal pay, ect.

I had heard terms like “feminazi” growing up, so the picture in my mind was more similar to the comic than I think I initially realized when reading it.

Ok this makes sense and is the direction I was heading in at the end there (glad I wasn’t just blindly groping), thank you!!

Yeah I don’t understand that either, but thank you for the explanation!

Ok so further simplifying, Straw man fallacy is per wikipedia, the refuting of an argument by refuting a different argument that is not part of the original context, and failing to recognize the distinction.

So here, people refute feminists by using the stawman of them wanting to blow up the earth / being extremists? I feel like something has to come back to training bras, like societal expectations of underwear for women is the argument, but then the straw man is radical feminism?

Goddamn I really am not getting the humor in this one. I’m not trying to be obtuse or overly PC, I really enjoy comics and just want to understand the humor because it seems really abstract to me.

I’m not sure what I said is conflicting, and I feel like your statement is trying to minimize the point I am making, but thats ok, I believe we will never come to agreement here because I firmly disagree with the disruption of privacy for the sake of advertisement.

You can say my feelings are meaningless, but as this gets more invasive people will seek ways to opt out, which I believe is meaningful, although you can say and feel whatever you want my friend :).

Thanks for the book rec, I’ll look it over!

Right? we need the follow up strip where the dude is now addicted to opioids and is pan handling for “gas money” lol.

which part is the joke? I’m honestly missing the humor in this one, like I get it might be funny because the feminists want her to blow up the world maybe?

Petaaaaaahhh explain the joke?

Edit: is the joke the training portion? Like they are training her?

honestly this seems pretty genius, I always wondered how much compute was wasted to make the AI sound smart/flowery/friendly/whatever-eey when all I wanted was raw information.

Yeah I understand that, but I will never support trading privacy so advertisers can generate more revenue, so I will continue to propose non-invasive alternatives and tell people supporting invasive methods that they are wrong.

I mean most of the ads I get are meaningless to me despite being personalized, I feel like a lot of people say the same thing, but maybe I am in the minority here.

Either way, I don’t think you need to invade peoples privacy to advertise to them, but agree to disagree. You’re proposing and supporting a level of capitalism that I find repulsive, profit at all costs, privacy isn’t a cost I want to spend.