Whenever a racing game comes out and they put sonic in a vehicle, I wish they’d note it in the lore itself

It’s gotta be a case of “sonic we are putting you in this car to make this race fair” which I’d find hilarious if they acknowledge it out loud.

IE have him say something like “don’t make me get out of this car” or whatever as a threat, or, “I’d have won if I wasn’t in this hunk of junk” or etc

The entire concept of Sonic in a car is hilarious to me, because while everyone else is going fast, he’s just like “oh my goooood why is this thing so slooooww”

Getting a later special meeting request with the ceo, at one company, because he wanted feedback on their interview process itself. He then offered me a different job and I had to decline cuz I already accepted another (this was a few weeks after the initial decline I gave)

In another case they just fast tracked me and I ended up declining the job anyways (didn’t like the job)

I’m full time employed but I still do occasiobal interviews to keep feelers out for how the market is. But I typically decline most offers cuz they’re not good enough to get me to actively quit my current job.

Same, I’ve started just stating I have a maximum of 3 interviews I do before I auto-reject the offer.

This has had interesting results.

In the “right” use case, story points should just represent relative effort.

The hours dont matter, its more about ranking how challenging a task is, in order to help the manager rank the priority of tasks.

You should have typically 2~3 metrics:

1. Points, which represent relative effort of the task to the other tasks you are also ranking.

2. Value, how much value does doing this task provide, how important is it

3. Risk, how risky is it that this might break shit though if you make these changes (IE new features typically are low risk since they just add stuff, but if you have to modify old stuff now your risk goes up)

If you have a good integration testing system automated, Risk can be mostly removed since you can just rely on your testing framework to catch if something is gonna explode.

Then your manager can use a formula with these values to basically rank a priority order for every ticket you now scored, in order to assess what the next thing is that is best to focus on.

Lol, are you actually getting downvoted for all this?

Everything this person wrote is correct. Free Speech protects you from the government, not other individuals.

pseudo-intellectual bullshit

They are 100% correct mate, everything they wrote is right. Just because you lack the capacity to understand something, doesn’t make it bullshit…

This isn’t just cruelty

You don’t want trans people actively in your military when the insurrection starts.

The expediency here should make it clear how fast paced the plans are.

Eh, Im not conservative but I do think this is a valid bipartisan criticism.

If they pulled this stunt with a liberal leaning byelection Id consider it a greasy trick.

I have no issue with putting a cap on ballot names via some kind of reasonable system (IE if you get more than x candidates, then the top y candidates can only go on the ballot based on who has the most vouches or whatever)

That way you can avoid dozens and dozens of randos flooding the ballot to confuse people. It’s a valid hole to patch in our system that both sides should be on board with fixing in a reasonable way.

That’s more like it, thank you!

Source? This is just some random picture, I’d prefer if stuff like this gets posted and shared with actual proof backing it up.

While this might be true, we should hold ourselves to a standard better than just upvoting what appears to literally just be a random image that anyone could have easily doctored, not even any kind of journalistic article or etc backing it.

I thought he already put tariffs on us? And then again?

The fact anon used IPA as an example in the context of “acronyms they had to go look up the meaning of” says a lot about them, ngl.

The tacked on casual transphobia finishes painting the picture of the sorta person they are.

As a Canadian, all I can say is “hey wait a minute, I’ve seen this one before!”

I’m shocked this sorta shit still happens in 2025, how did this come into being? Thus might be a rabbit hole I go down, who founded this program, who vetted it, etc

I still today use, and hear familiar millennial use, “lmao”

Usually ironically with a twinge of negativity. Pronounced “luh-mow”

IE “Did you here the US elected Trump again?” “lmao”

Usually only used on its own, it suddenly sounds weird if you put it in a sentence but purely just used as a response to show ironic dissatisfaction quickly.

Pretty much the verbal equivalent of an eyeroll.

If it makes you feel better, lego is actively chasing this out and switching to paper packaging! I’ve started to see it more and more on newer sets.

At least they’ve stuck with cardboard + paper packaging on everything else from the start.

Though, the fact lego is in of itself plastic sorta will always be an inherent problem… lol

If literally anyone thinks “it’s okay that Trump bombed Iran, it was the right move”…

Then couldnt you just argue that “if it was such an obviously right move, wouldn’t it have been easy to get congress to approve it?”

It’s illogical to on one hand say it was the right thing to do, while ignoring the fact he did it without approval.

If it was so right, then approval would’ve been easy to get…?

What’s not normal is the shift of responsibility from drivers to victims.

Imagine unironically thinking that if a person jumps out on a busy road in front of a moving car and gets hit, somehow thats the driver’s fault.

How many layers deep inside your echo chamber are you?

We can’t keep prioritizing cars, leaving no room for pedestrians and kids to move freely, then blame the victims.

The answer to this is not to let your seven year old child go wander out into traffic on a road, thats an insane kind of response.

You don’t get to go “Well because we don’t have enough crosswalks, better just let kids kill themselves, cuz they outta just be allowed to”

That’s an absolutely insane kind of response to the issue.

Cars sucking does not excuse the mother’s behavior here. Stroads being dangerous literally means her behavior was negligent. A lack of crosswalks or safer alternatives does not excuse her behavior.

You’re logic is on par with going “Well this mom let her seven year old wander around on a pier on a lake unsupervised. Her kid fell in the water and drowned. But really the city shouldn’t have made the lake that deep so really the mom isn’t at fault here. Kids should be able to safely wander around unsupervised on piers on lakes without worrying about drowning. In a perfect world every pier is built in a way that makes it impossible for kids to fall off them and drown. So yeah, the mom did nothing wrong”

Do you see how insane that sounds? No mate, that’s not how the real world works.

if younger children (under 8) should be with an adult or older sibling, and if 10 is old enough to walk alone, then 7 with a 10 year old is fine to walk 300m home.

Incorrect.

Being old enough to walk home alone is not equivalent to being old enough to escort a younger sibling on top of that.

That’s literally additional responsibility.

You are effectively going:

“If 4 is greater than 3, and 4 is greater than 2, then surely 4 is greater than 3 + 2 as well!”

You are stacking multiple simultaneously responsibilities together.

A 10 year old as just barely maybe responsible enough to walk alone, and even then I would caveat that that’s based off them walking home alone in a safe environment

There’s a huge difference between a 10 year old walking home alone on a quiet street vs busy road.

But even setting that aside…

And then if you think a 10 year old is old enough to watch over a younger sibling, barely…

Both responsibilities at the same time are now more than that

Responsibilities compound, this isn’t complicated.

I would say 12~13 bare minimum to simultaneously watch over a 7 year old, alone, while also being in a higher danger area (like a 4 lane busy road)

For a safer scenario, like a quiet street or at the park, I’d say 11 to 12

For a very safe scenario, like watching them at home or in your own yard, then yes, 10 is fine.

You can’t just take each variable individually and say it’s fine, and then assert the same is true when you compound them all together.

God, I really hope you don’t have kids if you seriously think it’s cool to let a unsupervised 10 year old watch a 7 year old near a busy road, that’s exceptionally negligent, lol

“Should be able to” doesn’t mean jack shit in terms of fault here.

The reality is, it wasnt safe. Yeah, it would be nice if it was safe.

But it wasn’t safe, and any parent that isn’t a negligent idiot would know it’s not safe, this is literally the Fuck Cars lemmy, so you should know how dangerous a 4 lane road is.

And thus you should know not to let your kids out unsupervised near one.

I don’t give a shit how safe we would like ot to be, the functional inference of "was this mother negligent or not* isn’t based off how safe we’d like it to be

It’s functional of how safe/dangerous it actually is at the time.

It’s like if a mother let’s her kids play unsupervised in a fucking hurricane and you try and argue “well there shouldn’t be a hurricane”

No one should give a shit, there very clearly, obviously, and demonstratebly was a fucking hurricane, so don’t fucking let your kids play in it. Don’t be a fucking dumb ass, supervise your children in potentially dangerous situations.

If this was some like a quiet neighborhood 1.5 lane sleepy street I’d be on the mom’s side more here.

But it was a fucking 4 lane busy road

Yes, that should be obviously negligent behavior to literally anyone with 2 braincells to rub together.

Fuck cars, but also fuck negligent parents that let their kids play near fucking traffic.

Reread what you wrote.

A 10 year old being able to walk home is not the same as that 10 year old also being responsible for a 7 year old

This isn’t rocket science.