rudyharrelson

Not that guy, but I have one kid who I love to bits. Got a vasectomy when he was 2 years old cause we would explode if we had a second kid, lol. One is enough for us. We’ve been incredibly fortunate so we decided we didn’t need any more surprises.

The doc who did mine was a military vet who went into urology after serving. I remember reading the pamphlet on the operation and it said the vasectomy only took 15 minutes. I asked him, “It only takes 15 minutes??” and he responded, “Eight.”

I like a good speedrun as much as the next guy, but I told him to take his sweet time lol. Ain’t in no rush, doc.

Recovery was super chill. Couldn’t roughhouse with my son for a week or two, and that’s about it. I’ve got some fun titanium clamps chilling in my junk now, so that’s fun. I’m basically Wolverine.

Birth control and STD protection are two wildly different things. Imagine, if you will, a married couple who doesn’t want any more kids. They want the former and don’t need the latter.

Based on the thumbnail I thought it was gonna say “and here’s where I’d put the documentation… if they gave me time to write it!”

I would prefer for crypto to be gone. Based on my understanding of blockchain, I don’t see how it can be used as currency ever. Blockchains can be extremely useful, just not as currency.

Hm, my understanding was that blockchain was the technology that handles the distributed ledger rather than the currency itself. Blockchain seems useful to a point in this realm, but is, like we both know, extremely energy inefficient and unsustainable.

The only thing you can really do about stolen tokens is have some authority de-list them and re-issue new token to the victim. That’s hardly a solution. It also extremely centralizes control, which runs antithetical to the purported benefits of crypto.

No arguments here. Though I think there could be better solutions out aside from using some centralized authority to delist stolen tokens. Blacklisting certain wallet IDs could be a crowd-sourced project, much like how blocklists for adblockers are largely community-driven.

Crypto also doesn’t take power away from institutions. […]

Gotta disagree with “crypto doesn’t take power away from institutions”. Exactly as you said, if institutions leverage their pre-existing power in the crypto space, it becomes centralized because a small pool of wealthy players control the majority of the currency. The currency itself is not centralized, but it can be exploited by bad actors who wish to manipulate its value (or just profit off of it, either way). If existing institutions weren’t using their massively accumulated wealth to affect the crypto space, they would be losing power over the people who decided to avail themselves of it and bypass conventional banks. I consider this a weakness in cryptocurrency that needs to be addressed, but is this weakness any different from any other currency?

Crypto is also incredibly power inefficient. Even with proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work, it is still factors less efficient than normal FIAT transactions, and as of yet I see no solution to that. One may pop up in some hypothetical future, but I have no faith in that.

Zero arguments from me. It’s an environmental disaster.

Additionally, crypto will also always reward those who engage with it disingenuously, as it is not linked to one’s real identity and, again, is inflexible and impossible to truly regulate. In a mass-adoption scenario, scammers would become enormously more successful.

Depends on how you intereact with crypto. In the US, most states require crypto brokers to verify the identity of those trading on their platforms. No different from opening a checking account with a bank. Sure, one could get into crypto anonymously but it’s considerably harder. Some crypto ATMs exist, but I think virtually all of them have cameras and require you to show photo ID to use them (at least in the US).

Most importantly, crypto is a digital asset whose store of value is implicitly tied to the belief that it can be sold for FIAT. It is almost exclusively a speculative vehicle, and always had been since its inception. Actual crypto purchases are disincentivized by how slow, inefficient, unwieldy, and volatile it is. Not to mention high transaction fees for the most popular coins. It is also deflationary, meaning one is disincentivized from spending it, which is extremely bad for the economy in a mass-adoption scenario. Gentle inflation is one of the core principles underpinning our economy. Having currency also be an asset that appreciates in value is objectively a bad thing.

I disagree that it’s been a speculative vehicle since its inception. It’s undeniably a speculative investment now, and has been for years, but when it first started out, it was basically worthless and adopted by a handful of businesses who were understandably pissed off after the 2008 market crash. People naturally speculated as to whether or not it would take off, and I think it’s unfortunate that it became a speculative investment by those who weren’t really interested in its use as a currency.

I’m no economist, but I don’t see much difference between “crypto’s value is implicitly tied to the belief that it can be sold for FIAT” and “FIAT’s value is implicitly tied to the belief that the issuing government values it”

I feel like I could keep going for a while but hopefully you at least understand why I feel this way now lol.

Oh believe me, none of this is news to me. I just wanted to see what you thought. I’ve found the cryptocurrency conversation interesting as the years have passed and enjoy asking people for their thoughts when they appear to be engaging in good faith. Most people I see are very unpleasantly hardline for or against crypto and don’t care to take time to discuss any of the nuance.

I’m curious if you would prefer crypto disappear entirely, or if you would prefer it be properly regulated so it has all the same, or greater, protections so that it can be part of the economy without being as risky for consumers.

I can only assume the early internet had little to no consumer protections on purchases (compared to the protections they have today, that is), but I could be wrong on that. Laws and regulations tend to always lag behind technology.

I like the idea of taking power away from big banks. Crypto is no silver bullet, but I’d like to think it could get there one day. But since capitalism always protects itself, I doubt any wealthy lobbies are going to be asking congress to pass common sense regulation for a currency that takes power away from institutional banks.

Why

Why not? Nothing wrong with research and development as long as everyone participating in the test is an informed, consenting adult IMO. The advancements could make current accessibility tech even better. For one reason or another, a quadriplegic person decided they were willing to take the risk, so maybe they consider current accessibility tech for quadriplegics to be insufficient and wanted to try for something better?

Please dude I promise you this is near universally hated by disabled people 😭

Well damn, I didn’t know.

Agreed. I was flippant after reading the headline, since I don’t like Musk, but once I read the story I was like "oh yeah this tech does have big potential for the differently abled. "

A quadriplegic being able to control a cursor on a screen with the implant for 100 days seems like a legit first attempt.

Could be great for the accessibility movement in the long run. But I could be naive or too optimistic.

Clearly you aren’t doing it right. Me buying shares is a death knell for companies. I’d be surprised if my broker doesn’t give companies a courtesy call when I’ve bought a few shares to let 'em know the company’s about to go under.

That’s one of the more depressing aspects. Whenever I see people say, “I can’t wait for McConnell to die” I’m like, “It’s not like Kentucky is suddenly going to vote in someone who isn’t horrible to replace him.” Just trading out one shitty politician for a younger one.

where’s the pleasure in watching a story you’ve just created with prompts?

I imagine (some of) the fanfic/fanvid community might love something like this for making fanvids. Some of my friends are big into the fanfic/fanvid scene and would probably love writing/directing their own videos to share with fellow fans in the community.

I don’t think I’m being “stubbornly naive about the system” by thinking it’s okay for people to engage in nuanced discource. You and I will not agree on this, and I am not interested in further engaging with someone whose hardline rhetoric has gone so far as to demonize valid criticism.

There’s nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in this election, but I’m not going to pretend he’s a perfect candidate. And anyone who thinks we need to treat him as such is deluded. Democrats and progressives (like me) knew he wasn’t a perfect candidate in 2020, but they knew he could garner enough support to beat Trump, and he did. Will he do it again? No idea, but I’m not interested in silencing valid criticisms now any more than I was in 2020, because the game hasn’t changed since then. You think January 6 changed anything? Ask any given Republican if January 6 changed which party they’ll be voting for. There’s your answer.

True, he wasn’t retired during that time. I was wrong. He just wasn’t the frontman sitting behind the desk each night.

If you think I’m part of “the problem” because I do not identify as a campaign staffer and do not assign that role to others during an election cycle, or that valid criticisms of candidates are off the table during the election cycle, then we can end the discussion here. As far as I’m concerned, you’re part of the problem because you assume, ultimately, that any nuanced discussion is invalid because Americans are too stupid or ignorant for that kind of discussion to ever be anything more than ammunition for the opposition, which I know isn’t the case. Have a good one!

I believe we fundamentally disagree about what Stewart’s job is. He spoke his mind in public for years, retired for several years, and now is back to speaking his mind in public again.

Can we at least agree that Stewart’s mind has many things in it, and choosing to turn a specific one into a TV show is a conscious decision?

Sure? But that hasn’t exactly been the fundamental issue you seem to be taking with his actions, is it? First you said:

Yeah, well, welcome to why you don’t talk shit about your candidate during a campaign. Your nuanced point is going to get flattened down to “even his allies are criticising him”. Weirdly, this exact quote dismantles his entire monologue there.

To which I replied that it isn’t fair to say Stewart can’t criticize his preferred candidate just because talking heads will spin it whichever way benefits them. Then you said:

But that doesn’t change the fact that any statement right now is a campaign statement. People think they can ignore politics for years and then act all surprised when they’re told to postpone “valid criticism”. Nah.

To which I replied that Stewart’s audience isn’t on the fence and the conservative talking heads’ audience isn’t either. Then you said:

I’m worried about people reading the article above reminding them that even Stewart thinks Biden is too old. Is that what he said? It doesn’t matter, it’s something you can say out loud now. And repeat endlessly in campaign rallies and propaganda disguised as news.

To which I replied that your core issue seems to be with disinformation, not Stewart himself. Then you said:

It’s not a problem of disinformation. […] Stewart chooses what to talk about. Focus is message.

To which I replied that TDS has always talked about the current news cycle and attempted to inject sanity into the discussion, which is absolutely true; I won’t argue this point with you.

So yeah, Stewart made a conscious choice to talk about… the topic that everyone is currently talking about. And he didn’t treat his preferred candidate with kid gloves. And pundits will use it as ammunition. If Stewart had been silent about this completely valid criticism of Biden, pundits would have just used someone else’s out-of-context quote, or just made something up entirely.

It appears we will not agree on this issue, which is fine. Just giving my perspective on why Stewart isn’t obligated to silence himself when he’s not being in any way unreasonable. He’s a comedian and a commentator, not a campaign staffer.

The Daily Show has always talked about the current news cycle, specifically to try to inject some sanity into the discussion because people are going to talk about whatever the current hype is regardless of whether or not The Daily Show ignores it or not.

And Stewart absolutely is speaking his mind. He’s telling his audience what he thinks about the current thing being talked about. Which is that Biden and Trump are both the oldest candidates to ever run for office, and questions about their faculties are valid from their voters.

Do you think next week Stewart will still be talking about Biden and Trump’s age? Doubtful. He’ll likely be talking about some different topic that has been making the rounds in the news cycle, like aid for Ukraine or the Isreal/Gaza conflict, etc. He could’ve covered those topics last week, but that would’ve just been ignoring the elephant in the room regarding the fact that many voters are unhappy with geriatric candidates. So he addressed it. That’s speaking his mind.

It seems to me that your issue is with disinformation, which isn’t Stewart’s fault. You seem to be blaming him for the fact that people will take him out of context or misrepresent what he said. I don’t fault him for that when he’s being fair with his criticisms. Sure, he could completely avoid ever criticizing Biden at all to avoid getting taken out of context, but I do not fault him at all for not participating in the insanity by refusing flatly to ever criticize his preferred candidate. You seem to dislike that he has chosen to speak freely even though he knows disinformation campaigns will use his statements as ammunition, but I certainly don’t. I appreciate his candor and I don’t fault him for speaking his mind even though bad actors will be waiting in the wings to corrupt his positions.

Welp, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think Stewart needs to campaign for Biden. We know Stewart is rooting for Biden to beat Trump. I’d rather he be a voice of reason than a campaign staffer. I doubt anyone watching Stewart’s show is now going, “Hmm, maybe I’ll stay home or vote for Trump instead cause Biden is too old.”

Stewart’s primary audience is already rooting for Biden. The audience of conservative talking heads spinning Stewart’s reasonable criticisms already weren’t gonna vote for Biden. Ultimately, I think Stewart has just introduced much needed earnest discussion into what is going to be an insane and vitriolic election year.

I don’t think it’s fair to say Stewart shouldn’t critique Biden during a campaign just because dishonest talking heads will spin it to their advantage. Someone has to be willing to give an earnest and nuanced take that doesn’t ignore valid criticisms of their own side. That’s having integrity. And we need more of it, not less.

If Stewart had ignored all the criticisms of Biden during the show, the talking heads would have just spun some other show’s takes like they always do. They’re gonna do it regardless of how honest Stewart is cause that’s their job.

Agreed. I was recently prepping a laptop to give to my mom, and planned to put Ubuntu on it since, y’know, it’s “linux for human beings”. I hadn’t used Ubuntu Desktop in years, and was blown away by how unintuitive everything felt in the GUI. nothing behaved how I expected (this isn’t to say it is inherently bad; this is just my experience).

Tried Linux Mint XFCE instead and was instantly relieved that it was a similar user experience to Windows (since that’s typically going to make things easier for beginners).

It’s also my go-to distro if I have a machine lying around that’s in-between tasks and just needs a general-purpose OS for the moment.