Looking at a couple hours of a stock means nothing and is purposely misleading. Zoom out and it’s got pretty good upward consistency.
Posts like this are like the sad ex who can’t move on and just makes up bullshit about their former partner. Let’s move on and make Lemmy better instead of being stuck making up fake news for internet points.
On the other hand, being posted to a shitposting sub doen’t make something a shitpost. Shitposts don’t have to be jokes but just feels like agendaposting, which feels a bit lame in a shitposting sub.
And no, I don’t want facts here. I don’t want purposefully misleading shit either. That’s ofyen just facts presented weirdly to mislead you. I want proper good old fashioned shitposts
I do this all the time in my reports to execs. If they’re not paying attention to something I’ve been raising, I zoom the y axis in to show big up and down ticks in a visually alarming way. Similarly if they’re obsessed with something stupid, I zoom out and show a much more flatlined and consistent graph so they get the big picture.
Yea now it’s going through fluctuations. When this post went up it was at the peak of the 26th. Either way, we gotta wait this out before jerking ourselves off about a stock crash.
I think you actually want {🐸}∪{🐘}⊂{🐂} because ∪ is union and ∩ is intersection. There are no frogs that are also elephants so the set would be empty and thus couldn’t contain any bulls. 😔
l I got my account recovery back with the help of @spezxoxo on Instagram very fast and reliable he’s going to get help you out in all what you wanna need I’m so happy 🙌
It’s probably a whole set of bots and the responses to “this needs to be a coffee mug” are some other account saying “I found one!” and that’s the whole point of the comment chain. Someone has a crappy mug to sell and constructs scenarios that seem natural ish to introduce it.
There used to be a big issue on Tumblr years ago with bots trolling for comments like that and then stealing whatever picture that comment was on to sell crappy t-shirts of it or whatever. People started fighting back by posting those comments specifically on Disney stuff.
before adding the text and circles it was only 1.6kb
it’s a case where jpeg compression ironically results in the picture getting 60x larger and more blurry because everyone recompresses the images and jpeg is designed for large photos and not pixel art
Use png and IDK I don’t remember which cmd line soft but it stripped out unused colors and compressed images like that one hard.
That, without the red lines and circles, and without jpeg jitter should be like 1kb. Or less less.
Now, as an oldtimer, when you load that 1kb image up, it will still take like 640x320 bytes (it was all 8bit) so 200KB of RAM. But back in the day I guess it was more like the original GB 160x144 so 22.5KB RAM needed to show that image.
Did it work like that?
No, because cartridges didn’t have a lot of space, and the consoles didn’t have much RAM, so you used tiles. You had a tile map image, each tile was 8x8 pixels pointing to a palette (so you could use 4-bits for the color. More or less so, there were a lot of ‘modes’). Each tile had a number and your screen was some 20x18 tiles x 1 byte numbers, designing the ‘tile’ to be shown at that particular position of the screen.
All done by hardware so way fast!
To make the scrolling run you had a ‘delta’ pixels to slightly move the “screen” around.
ROM Cartridges like that were also basically as fast as RAM, and mapped into system memory, so you could reference things directly instead of having to load things to RAM first like off a disc
Yes yes! But wasn’t there some limit, like if you had a 1Mbit cartridge you still had to shuffle the data around? Or was it just a penalty to map a different chunk of memory?
Not the guy you replied too, and my memory is also fuzzy, but I always love how crazy and analog nes hardware was. Im like 70% sure that later in the nes lifespan they made it to where cartridges had more rom and could shuffle the data banks/tables around and that the nes could only process something like 32kb at a time I think? So they would just swap around the data sets depending on when they where needed.
Almost like one of those choose your own adventure books… Im probably horribly wrong in that summary and analogy though. It’s been years since I last got a refresher on nes tricks lol
Looked up the article. They’re mad that Dolly Parton, who is a very outspoken Christian, is specifically the kind who embraces the “God loves everyone and that means we should love everyone, too” ethos of Christianity. In other words, the author of the article is pissed that Dolly doesn’t gaybash. What a fucking piece of shit you have to be to sit down and be like “you know what’s wrong with this person? They aren’t cruel enough.”
For example; you should always love your kid, but you should not necessarily accept what they chose to do or what they become.
good point, if i had a kid and they turned out to be a trump supporter, i would never accept that. but i also wouldn’t disown them like trump supporter parents do to their kids for being gay
This is how conspiracy theories ought to work. Perfectly fine to raise a question, and dismissed when you get the answer. Absent is the rampant speculation and unfounded claims.
It’s because they find evidence to support their truth, instead of formulating a theory based in the evidence. I’ve heard it described with the circle analogy.
Imagine the absolute truth is a circle, but we don’t know what the shape is. By doing research, we find out certain facts as points on that circle. We can then draw straight lines between those points, and draw a shape that’s as close to the absolute truth as we can get, with the data we have. Further research and discoveries place more dots, sometimes falling outside of the lines we’ve drawn. So we redraw the shape more and more, always increasing towards that circle. That’s how science works.
Conspiracy theorist do the opposite. They draw a random shape (that’s nowhere near a circle, like a star), and then go out to find proof that fits on that shape. Some proof is correct - it just happens to fall on the same lines as the circle. Others are completely out there, aligning with their shape, but not with the circle (because it’s not relevant to the truth). And if they do find proof that fits on the circle, but not on their star, it’s ignored.
I like debates but most conspiracy debates are absolutely insufferable because of this. No matter how many points get completely debunked, they move on to the next one, and even worse, continue spreading the debunked points afterwards. They don’t give a shit about science or the truth.
That doesn’t include R&D, and very notably doesn’t include things the life support backpack or helmet either. If you add those, you come to something like nearly 2 million in 1967 money, or nearly 19 million in modern money.
Best I could find were a 5 million and 100m dollar order for the 60ish suits plus 20m for what I’m guessing are 60 more PLSS units, though I’ll admit there might be fewer of those. Inflation happens and you’re on my number. But if you have a better source than someone said it on a forum once, I’ll gladly accept it.
Regardless, it was crazy expensive, and shouldn’t be swapped out with the other. The point stands
Custom tailored suits that have to fit you perfectly so you don’t die. And might have to put them on very fast in an emergency, in low or zero g, with potential limited light. Big, high contrast, labels are probably helpful.
Also, these things were tested and iterated on repeatedly. If something is on that suit, it’s often because it’s solving a problem that was identified in a past test.
How are they being body shamed? I don’t see anybody saying one is better than the other. Some people like bigger boobs, some people like smaller boobs so there isn’t a correct answer. I can see them being objectified sure, but I wouldn’t call it body shaming.
How is this being objectified though? If one is a brunette and the other is blonde is an observation. It’s not saying they are only an object. It’s just a description of an attribute.
We’re not talking about hair colour though, this is obviously reducing a pic of some friends to “haha big booba small booba”. That’s kind of textbook objectification.
Way to take my point, not listen, and completely make it personal. It’s exactly what I meant. That it’s just a difference you can see. That’s the same as the color of their shirts. It’s obvious if you have eyes. Pointing out the contrast is the root of the joke and can work just because it is so obvious. That is the only point I am making.
I debated which term to use and decided on body shaming because it was a touch vague. Bottom line is that these two women were just at lunch and now people are reducing it to just their breasts. Objectified would’ve probably been a clearer word choice, but I think since the meme is making a comparison between the two its inherently body shaming. Regardless of whichever one you personally think is more attractive.
Or they just posted a lunch picture to their social media and somebody grabbed it and made a meme out of it. Your body doesn’t determine what intention you have when you post pictures
If you had lunch with a friend, took a picture, and posted it online, would it have been to “show off”? Ask yourself why you’re making that assumption about the subjects of this photo.
How exactly am I body shaming? You can decide whichever one you personally find more attractive, we all can, but these are just two women with breasts at lunch. Probably posted it to Facebook/IG, and now there are people using a meme to compare their bodies, neither one of them is better or worse, but the meme is inviting us to judge, so they are both being body shamed for not having the others. Objectified would’ve been a clearer word choice, but we can use whatever word you feel fits best so long as we agree this concept is gross.
Totally ignoring the majority of women are mocked for having big or little breasts at many points in their life. If you are going to play dumb about it then I can’t help you, but you should really talk to any woman you have in your life and let them explain it to ya. I’m not gonna walk you through an extremely common experience.
Assigning big = better and small = worse is indeed a judgement.
I think some people would argue that smaller growth = better since economies do better given slow change rather than rapid change, as rapid change might lead to rebounds.
By even recognizing traits that seem similar across humans, we’re isolating those parts of them while ignoring the richness of their being. It is objectification.
But objectification is only detrimental when we assign judgements to what we compare. I’m not a woman so I haven’t experienced the turmoil in those comparing breasts or other factors that men desire, but I am taller than average so I get the other end of the stick in how men are judged based on their height - often by women.
Being short or tall has nothing to do with your intrinsic value as a human being, but there is extrinsic value created by those outside of us. I agree in that we should be prioritizing the former instead of the latter in society, which is why posts like this are problematic.
Thank you. I almost typed out a similar comment, but deleted it.
Although this meme is just supposed to be “thing, bigger thing” maybe half the time I see it it’s someone trying to say “thing, objectively better thing” and it just feels really gross. I hate most memes that are just stolen social media posts of people living their lives honestly.
Her breasts are HERS. Not yours or anyone else viewing her. She is not advertising! She is wearing whatever clothes feel comfortable to her and at no point does that become something she should be criticized for.
Is it now? Everything’s a misogyny. Girls putting bra, misogyny, guys noticing pushup bras which are designed to drive attention, misogyny. Not noticing, misogyny. Breathing misogyny. And it is damn funny. Not as funny as reading your comment history… “gender is a thought crime”, hilarious. Luckily most of society doesn’t bend to your will otherwise you’d be policing what everyone is allowed to think and quoting freedom of speech at the same time.
Pick a lane. Is everything misogyny or am I a lone tyrant?
“gender is a thought crime”, hilarious.
That was fallaciously mocking someone, but ya know. Go off. Be mad.
guys noticing pushup bras which are designed to drive attention
Nope. 100% bullshit. Clothes are for the person wearing them, nothing about this has to do with driving attention. And it’s wildly arrogant to assume otherwise. You know that tons of women wear sexy underwear without showing anyone right? That’s because its for THEM, and not for any one else.
“Clothes are for the person wearing them, nothing about this has to do with driving attention.”
I agree here, but there are plenty of women who wear specific clothes to garner attention. That, too, is their perogative. At the end of the day the attention is still for them, not the person giving the attention, so it still ties back to your initial point I guess!
It absolutely is. The fact you lack humor in any shape or form is a problem of your own. More to the point, what others find funny is not up to you to decide, luckily. Otherwise we’d have a nations of people with brooms stuck up their ass. And I think only a blockhead with no sense of humor is not capable of understanding a joke. So there, I am equally in the right of deciding what is shitty and what is not, as you are.
Wrong. Comedic license: you can joke about ANYTHING, as long as the joke is funnier than the thing is fucked up to joke about. Things you don’t seem to understand: who decides if your joke is funny? The audience, aka literally anyone/everyone but the joke teller. How do I know if my joke is deemed funny? If a large portion of the audience, preferably over 50%, deem it so.
I hear you. I just start to think about how expensive bras are at that size. They are expensive enough as it is and I am thankful I can stick to something comfy from TomboyX.
I really wish we didn’t exploit people on the Internet quite so much. Do these girls even know or approve of their pictures being posted?
How is this bodyshaming? Its just natural that some people have bigger breasts than other people. There are also meme formats where one of them is taller or something so is that also bodyshaming or what?
Honestly really sad that some people seem to be more upset by you writing “body shamed” instead of “objectified” than they are about the objectification happening in the OP
Or when objectivity is not called for. All those fallacies and "unfair strategies" are described as they are in order to keep objective discussions at said objective level. Yet, when the discussion by it's nature cannot be objective, none of those "fallacies" apply as fallacies.
Besides: An appeal is not a bad tactic in any way, shape or form.
This is the only time so far I’ve seen “fallacy fallacy” used correctly and not being used, ironically fallaciously, as if it automatically cancels out every fallacy in a person’s argument automatically making it valid.
Look at his eyes, and look at his face… this is the trained male.
Long have nation states and governments tried to break the male, to wrangle the male into a submissive state, but none are more successful than the woman sociopath.
The female sociopath is in many ways addicted to control. Her one impulse to anything the male does is how she can turn it into her advantage, to control the male entirely.
Luckily for the male, the sociopath woman gives fierce blowjobs, so it’s up to him wether or not the pain and degradation is worth it. 4/10 males say it is.
Luckily for the male, the sociopath woman gives fierce blowjobs
Honestly that’s a 50/50 shot between fierce and dead fish. I have proclivity for crazy, and a good half the time it’s all for show and a real disappointment at game time. That all said, always test drive the car before signing the paperwork.
On the contrary, given my current life experience, I damn well diserve answers to all the questions I may have… if there are none or not enough, yes, the transaction is not worthwile.
Unfortunately, women tend to want partners, men want caregivers. Reminding him to care for his kids because he doesn’t recognize how children as his responsibility is now a women’s personality issue, rather than a man’s personality issue. It’s wild that a woman doing merely most of the care work and the full entirety of family organization from cleaning to meals has become something to look down on as a woman failing rather than men being irresponsible and not respecting their spouse.
You may be right in general, but none of that is a good excuse for a transactional sex life.
If I wanted to exchange services (labor) for sex, I could simply take the money earned from labor to purchase it from a prostitute. That is not what a marriage should be like.
You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations that are wildly inaccurate. Some of those statements (hell, maybe all of them) may be true for certain socio-political subgroups of our society, but I absolutely do not agree that that’s the dynamic through which most heterosexual people view their partners (or more accurately, the idea of a partner).
You’re basically just regurgitating the “atomic family” ethos from back in the 1950s.
by treating him like a kid will not help. Yes, making clear that you expect him to share the care work with you is important. Making rules together can be a way of doing it, but he needs to do it because he is the dad and her partner and a reasonable adult that takes their responsibilities serious, not because he wants a BJ at the end of the week. They both need couple therapy, because he isn’t a responsible adult and she infantilizes him on top.
Men tend to trend more irresponsible, women more neurotic, in my experience. There’s plenty of exceptions, but on the whole that’s what I’ve seen. Neither is good, both can collapse a relationship. In straight relationships this can result in women taking on everything. Even where she’s overcome (or not originally had) any neuroticism, a sufficiently irresponsible man can still put the problem on her shoulders.
What I think you’re omitting is that this can happen in reverse.
Even when a man overcomes (or didn’t originally have) any irresponsibility, a sufficiently neurotic woman can still put all the problems on him. He has to pull the tasks away from her because she thinks only she can do it ‘right’. Only then can he pull his weight. But he then must also do the dance of convincing his partner that he’s doing a good job, or she’ll just feel compelled to do the work again herself.
Of course most relationships are somewhere between these extremes. And some even see the roles reversed. People are, of course, extremely diverse. But this is a common pattern I’ve seen.
Unfortunately, women tend to want partners, men want caregivers.
Thank you. Nobody’s seeing that. All the comments saying the woman is mean, instead of talking about how irresponsible the man must be that he needs a reward system to do what he should be doing on his own* for his family.
*I’m not sure if it’s the right expression. I mean by his own volition and out of responsibility.
Edit: I won’t acknowledge the rest of your comment because, honestly, it got confusing.
Best thing about this is that it is canonically true; “Cameron believed that cops, institutionalized in a system that encourages them to abuse their power, were a perfect representation of the inhumanity that led to the creation of murderous robots.” screenrant.com/terminator-2-movie-james-cameron-t…
Ironically, Robocop would have defended him from the terminators.
I really do miss the 80s/90s era anti-capitalist dystopian future movies. We have the Purge series now, which has been pretty good (at least 3 and 4), but nothing approaching the massive numbers of productions ranging from They Live to Rollerboys to Robocop to Running Man and so many others.
It feels like we’ve hit a tipping point where subconsciously at least we’ve figured out we’re actually the bad guys from Red Dawn and the Wolverines are the people we’re killing, and just decided to lean into it. I’m waiting for Handmaid’s Tale to get a Birth of a Nation makeover in the next ten years.
This was the subject of a limited run comics series by Dark Horse called Robocop vs The Terminator that was pretty rad. It was written by Frank Miller or Sin City and The Dark Knight Rises fame who also wrote the script for Robocop 2. It kind of led to a video game as well. No idea what that was like but the comics were pretty decent as I recall.
The 80s/90s anti corporate dystopia was oddly (or maybe not so oddly) a prediction of the outcome of the other 80s/90s movies and media which were very much pro corporate propaganda. The young white male up-and-coming corporate exec, making money, driving fancy cars, was definitely an image they were selling hard in the 80s. Which seemed to align with Reagan’s view of the world.
You’re absolutely right. In my memory, though, the ones that stick out the most are the ones where the hero is pro-corporate but in an anti-corporate way. I’m thinking about movies like Working Girl, 9 to 5, and Secret of My Success, and even Other People’s Money. The villains were the very straight and square boss types and the heroes were the young(er) upstarts who could out-business them. OPM was a little different but I think it fits the theme.
The main difference I’m seeing is that even in the pro-capitalism shows, it was still all about sticking it to the man. If the good guys were cops, the man was the chief of police. If the good guys were businessmen, the man was their boss. If the good guys were soldiers, the man was their CO, or the generals or politicians back in Washington.
Maybe it’s purely subjective on my part, but it seems like there’s a lot more pro-authority movies being made now. You can’t take a movie like Top Gun (which still had the shaggy haired rebel as well as one of the most homoerotic themes in mainstream cinema at the time) with something like Bill Murray in Stripes. Stripes is great comedy that I’d place almost at the level of Caddyshack, but even though both movies could have been shown by recruiters to get people to enlist, Stripes was still a goofball comedy of the slobs against the snobs (with the snobs in this case being their leadership).
I’d really like to get back into that kind of default cultural image. Cops were mostly corrupt (Serpico) or idiots (Cannonball Run), or else inept (Escape from New York, or all of those stupid Charles Bronson movies).
It just feels like we hit that point where the default is to love Big Brother.
It’s also a tactically sound decision for the T1000 to impersonate a cop, because they have powers that are made to be abused. It’s a perfect reflection of the fact that the job attracts abusive personalities.
Also, this was only two years before the Rodney King beating and subsequent LA Riots, with 911 Is A Joke and Ice T on the radio. LAPD as villains was in the air.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.