I once got detention for “hacking.” All the school computers were on the same network, so if you opened Computer Management, then selected a different computer on the network, you could… get this… eject the disc drive on unsuspecting people. They’d be on their computer, 15 feet away, and then I’d click a button and their disc drive would eject, momentarily confusing them.

Librarian saw me using the “My Computer” folder to get to Computer Management, apparently that was proof enough. How is using available folders on the computer “hacking”? I have no idea, didn’t seem to be relevant.

ChapGPT psychosis is going to be a very common diagnosis soon.

Back then we wore boxers that were longer than shorts are today.

Yikes. Imagine if he could sue for that.

I don’t understand. Congress is supposed to decide how we spend money and how much we tax. Why is the president doing those things?

https://x.com/mazeincoding/status/1952787361768587741

Here’s the link to the original tweet. A lot of people saying 1 big client probably switched models. As all the other models rose during the same time period.

So to replay what he just said, but with some coherence:

Epstein was scouting Mar-A-Lago for underage girls, because he knew Trump hired underage girls. Then it happened enough times that Trump himself, a billionare with other problems, heard about it. Trump then directly told Epstein “get outta here.”

Read the link people! It’s legal in 6 states! Why am I still getting replies saying the same thing?

Except for the 6 states where it’s legal. Like in the link I posted. Because it is safer than not. But IDK why I expected people to read the link.

Do I get to pay 24% less social security tax?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160723102129/http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/fajans.htm

These Berkeley Professors bring up an interesting idea. Not so much mentioning safety directly. But they mention 2 different possible routes, one with more stop signs and one with more traffic and fewer stops.

While a drop of a few miles per hour may not seem like much to a car driver, think of it this way: the equivalent in a car would be a drop from 60 to 45 mph. Because the extra effort required on California is so frustrating, both physically and psychologically, many cyclists prefer Sacramento to California, despite safety concerns. They ride California, the official bike route, only when traffic on Sacramento gets too scary.

So perhaps adding “stop as yield” changes the calculation for what is the fastest route by bicycle. Which leads bicycles to take safer routes with more stop signs and fewer cars. That could explain some of the decrease in accidents when states/cities pass these laws. Change in bicyclist behavior.

I still don’t understand how running a red lights on a bicycle makes anything safer… Especially for the cyclist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Safety

A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law).[15][16] A Delaware state-run study of the “Delaware Yield” law (allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.[17]

It’s safer dude. You asked how it was safer, here are numbers of how it’s safer.

Bicycles are not cars, and should not be treated identically to cars. Your post sounds like you’ve never ridden a bicycle in a city before. Bicycles stopped at traffic lights are kinda in an impossible situation. Coming to a 100% complete stop means dismounting and putting your feet on the pavement. Briefly becoming a pedestrian in the road. Basically asking people to rear end you, because they don’t expect a 100% complete stop either. Red lights become “yield” signs. “Stop as yield” or an “Idaho stop” are known to be safer for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Have you followed the news lately? “yes, but does anyone care?” legal theory has been a thing for at least 10 years now.

The police recently had a bond issue in a local election here. The stat I saw mentioned in the debate was that 1 extra police offer was estimated to lower the crime rate by 0.1%. Based on the size of the city or whatever, they think if they added 10 cops, they think they could lower crime by 1%. IDK that seems like you’re spending about a million dollars more annually to prevent a fairly small number of crimes. There are probably other things you could spend that million on that would lower crime by 1%.

Uh unfortunately that would lead to pinning all unsolved murders on homeless people. It would give a financial incentive for a cop to shoot 1 homeless person and blame the other.

“Is this career path okay with discrimination? Because I have groups I want to die.”

Looks tiny. Maybe 6 weeks? Younger? He might still be young enough to enjoy sitting on your chest and feeling your heartbeat like a baby kitten.

They aren’t okay with pedophiles, they are just casual enough to miss the details. They spent the last decade calling the Clintons and Biden pedos, so they think this is just the left flinging shit. The same sort of shit that the right wing has been flinging forever. They normalized it, and now it looks like everyone accusing everyone of everything.

No accountability and a climate of fear is the goal.