In fairness the msdn documentation is prone to this also.
By “this” I mean having what looks like a comprehensive section about the thing you want but the actual information you need isn’t there, but you need to read the whole thing to find out.
I agree but I’d also add that this doesn’t automatically make them bad people, just people who aren’t’ compatible with you.
I’m not defending them, It’s entirely possible they are bad people, but it’s not a given.
What i mean by this is that it’s not necessarily because of some flaw with you or them, it can just be that you don’t match up right now(or ever).
I think it’s important to understand that sometimes the only way to find out if you match is to try it and see, it sucks when it doesn’t work out but the alternative is never really finding out if it could.
I think you meant to reply to the other person.
If you’ll notice I mention the biggest offenders and/or the the underlying management infrastructure.
Private jet owners getting systematically luigi’d would also fall under that remit, I was just using data centres as an example.
Oil rigs, Nestlé, blackrock etc would also all work , with varying degrees of efficacy and difficulty.
To address your argument directly, before you get all preachy think of the actual consequences of major data centres going down, all the critical infrastructure running on said data centres would also go down.
That’s air traffic control, shipping and logistics ,and yes, agriculture; any system relying on cloud services running in those data centres
If you pick the right ones and do it properly (a competently executed strategy, if you will) then you could cripple most industries, with all the consequences that brings.
Just to be clear you are saying you didn’t provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote
what i said were all truth claims.
no argument at all is needed.
I know you aren’t going to understand how your reply doesn’t make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.
It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I’ll leave you be.
Point to the advocation.
Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.
Indeed, but the definition does, I don’t care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.
I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.
For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.
Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than “I said so” followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn’t leave much in the way of conversation points.
But lets give it a go.
Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.
Secondly, assuming the first point wasn’t true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.
Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn’t a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,“I’m right, because reasons” doesn’t leave many conversational avenues open.
The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.
I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.
How the fuck would I boycott a brand for being owned by Nestle before I find out that it’s owned by Nestle?
Consumer research, look up the brands you don’t know before you buy them, the corps aren’t generally out here running shell companies to hide relationships.
Im not being snide and I don’t care about the rest of the argument with OP, this is the literal answer to that one question, that’s all.
Indeed, in a working ideal model(see below for more on this*) of society the police exist to enforce the rule/spirit of law equally to all people.
ICE should ostensibly be a federal branch that is held to account by the government as a whole and deals specifically with customs and immigration related issues.
Citizens with no customs or immigration issues aren’t really part of that mandate so it should be handed off to the relevant authorities that do in fact deal with that type of ‘crime’.
Things are so far removed from that, that ICE is effectively running on gang/gestapo rules at this point and the government is actively encouraging it.
* So, by working ideal model i’m describing a point of view using traditional ideals of fairness and law, that assume the system is working towards that ideal.
The current system is not at all set up that way, so even if it seems batshit , this might actually be the system working as intended by the current sitting majority power (or if you’re really cynical like me, capitalism as a whole).
So not only are you fighting to move the overton window in a direction that resembles the storybook ideals of fairness and equality, you are also fighting the existing imposed status quo.
I also wonder why this even is a case for ICE and not the police.
Same reason the Mafia or the Cartels don’t call the police when something goes down.
If you don’t take care of it yourself how will people know not to fuck with you ?
No need for apologies, you don’t mean it and i don’t really care about your opinion enough to warrant it.
judging by the replies so far I wouldn’t expect any level of good faith discourse
^
Responding with a deflection is on brand though, so kudos for consistency.
I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
You don’t need to prove anything, and judging by the replies so far I wouldn’t expect any level of good faith discourse so no need to worry about my expectations.
Does the fact that the democrats are shitty politicians somehow negate the fact that trump is an incompetent manchild with apparently no checks and balances ?
Or are they, in fact, two entirely unrelated things that can both be true ?
An unrelated strawman is a poor distraction from you not actually addressing what is being said.
Though i suppose if you don’t actually have anything to say on the subject a strawman is better than nothing, for a given value of “better”.
And somebody who includes health in their metric of enjoyment will have a different threshold
Indeed, but my comment was a reply to another poster who was implying a specific metric.
I was just trying to point out that metric isn’t the same for everyone, even a composite metric will differ person to person
Depends on how debilitating it is, if its bad enough, therapy might be a useful option.
Body dysmorphia about weight might need a bit more help than you can give as an individual.
It might not meet the criteria for that, but worth consideration.
Edit: to clarify, dysmorphia like this is where the brain refuses to acknowledge the relatively objective reality of a “normal” weight.
It’s often one of the underlying causes of bulimia/anorexia and the converse.