We’ve all snuck something home from the office here and there

Wow that’s interesting, cuz I share zero trust with the NSA, too.

This is definitely making me Rage

Seems to me like the one locked door and the literal hiding room would be the two most important places to look. How did they ever consider the search done without going in these two rooms?

Specific strings of letters are filtered in some instances. So it isn’t that word, it’s the 4 letters that are being filtered out in the middle of the word. But apparently it’s only on some instances.

Took me so long to figure out what the word around the “removed” was. For others (using a symbol so it isn’t removed again), I think it is “susp|cion”

Unprecedented

Some before her, some after her.

Lol they said “threatening violence” because it was the easiest thing to ban you with. The real reason you got banned is that you’re a psycho, man. You sound like you are saying you wish you were allowed to hurt or kill your own children, and you’re talking about them as property. That’s crazy person shit.

Like almost any concept, the argument over free will really becomes semantic (and pedantic) when pushed to academic extremes. At a certain point it shifts to “is there a difference between free will and the apparent ability to choose what we do in any given moment?”

This scientist claims that the inability to tease any choice from the infinite variables that affect that decision means that the decision isn’t ours. It is an equally valid conclusion that you don’t need to know every single thing that influences you in order to have agency among those influences.

Moore’s take on the Cartesian question of “how do we know we exist?” is similar. It points out that the debate actually has nothing to do with existence, but what it means to “know” something, and that “knowing,” like anything, can of course be made impossible with philosophical and academic contortions (e.g., arguments like “but what if this is a simulation and there is a “great deception” that only convinces you that you exist?”). It is not that some form of knowing cannot exist, it is that people are capable of imagining fantasies in which knowing cannot exist, and Moore denies that we should let the ability to conceptualize something beyond the intended context of our language (i.e., perceived reality) pervert our ability to see and accept something concrete.

Is Moore right? Who knows, but he gets at the point that the answers to questions of free will, existence, ontology, etc. have more to do with how the questions are framed academically and philosophically than with how the same concepts actually operate in real life. It will always be possibly to frame a question (or to define the words within a question) in a way that denies the possibility of knowing or agency. But the ability to do so doesn’t mean that other methods of asking or knowing are impossible.

Guys let’s not make taking drugs look even worse by association it with that guy

This joke is just swell

It tended to be that Native Americans would do it in or after battle/fighting an enemy. But in response, colonists, particularly those “settling” the West, started offering standing rewards for every Native Americans scalp people could collect. Many white colonists then ended up scalping every Native Americans they could find, regardless of enmity, and even scalping others as well, such as railroad workers, in order to pass off their scalps as those of Native Americans. All to say that, yes, much like many things, scalping was a tradition of another culture that colonists adopted and took much further.

Sad!

I like guys who weren’t captured, and fingerprinted, mugshotted, and booked.

“See if your employer has a gift matching program today!”

And their response is literally “you farted!”

Try posting on Nextdoor!

And coincidentally wants people to rent them.

Important that the headline notes both adults AND Republicans support it