Dangdoggo

Dangdoggo, 26 days ago

Nah I love it. That's the bit, using it so nonchalantly sort of diminishes the expression. I don't think anyone using the meme gives a fuck about a Christ either

JoMomma, 1 month ago

Explain yourself

Unbeelievable, 6 months ago

Are they wrong?

paprika, 6 months ago

It’s because these dork ass losers don’t have any success with a level playing field. They need to trick a girl when young and then trap them in loveless marriages with a bunch of kids. Women having sexual freedom ruins all their plans. Honestly most of them don’t even think women should have a choice in marriage at all. They long for the days when a father would trade his daughter to some idiot for a couple cows.

Maeve, 6 months ago

He actually said it out loud. Instead of expecting fabulously wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.

He wants to breed more wage slaves that are so disposable, it doesn’t matter if they starve on the streets, as long as they’re not self-medicating.

Dangdoggo, 7 months ago

It's the API itself, it's a little more complicated than just checking if you have a chromium browser. What it's looking for is special tokens generated by google within chromium browsers. Google is selling this idea as a way to help verify identity of the end user and thus block bots. That's concerning, because it suggests that google will have some verification method likely involving ID and generate a unique token with that info associated with it. This is a real concern for web privacy for like a million reasons, obviously, and ideally should not be adopted by anyone. If other tech gatekeepers adopt it (and they would love to) it will block giant swathes of the internet from people refusing to use the tech and further googles monopoly over general consumer browser use. Now, could the token be fudged? Possibly. But it will take time to figure out.

ZeroFox, 7 months ago

So what they’re saying here is that it’s cheaper for them to drag rtr laws to court everywhere for years than it is for them to make devices repairable. Or, in other terms, planned obsolescence makes them so much money that they can spend billions in lawyer fees and still make a profit.

Dangdoggo, 7 months ago

Yeah well if colonial Americans said "you can't murder someone just because someone murdered you" after the Boston Massacre we wouldn't have a country sooo... You sound like a spineless apologist?

dmrzl, 7 months ago

Doing this every few minutes is annoying af. Wanted a tool like this for ages.

TinyPizza, 7 months ago

Johnny Harris did a "both sides" dive into Joe a month ago and I unsubbed after watching that garbage. He just kinda breezes over shit and ends up being like "he just intellectually curious." Fuck right off with that shit. I remember years ago when that jungle spice smoking thumb of a man had Andy Ngo on and a friend of mine was trying to defend him asking if its "ok for people to attack a journalist." The friend didn't really know the context outside of the vague framework they supplied, but we argued for like 20 minutes. Even after I showed him who Ngo really was and what he was all about, it seemed impossible to break the perception he'd been given that Ngo was a victim.

Rogan is a misinformation gateway that primes people for the bigger scam down the line, whilst washing it's hands of any responsibility. He disarms people with a "curious" persona and the majority of his content just being empty mental calories to be consumed. It's like a viral carrier that dulls peoples mental immunity against right wing propaganda by surrounding it in a 100 layers of DMT vision stories. Personally feel like it makes him one of the bigger dangers for people getting put into the pilled pipeline.

xantoxis, 10 months ago

No. Jesus. It doesn’t cause conequent and proximate injury. The rewards are not redeemed when the card is swiped, so it doesn’t meet the criterion of “proximate” because McDonalds still has many opportunities to void those points before they are used. Swiping a card is not injury. It also isn’t injury because someone would have received the benefit of those points either way, so no actual loss accrues to McDonalds.

Last but not least, their ToS stipulate a requirement that in any legal dispute the parties must participate in arbitration. You know what type of law arbitrators do not handle? Criminal law. Not a crime, even according to McDonalds. Not fraud.

Fuck’s sake, McDonald’s has an army of actual lawyers letting them think they can get away with putting up this fucked-up sign, they don’t need you jumping on the back to help convince everyone to just bend over and take it.

infinitevalence, 10 months ago

It sounds dumb but you should probably sue. The trucker will be at fault and having some idea of how their insurance works not putting your name on it means you will get cut out. And someone is going to sue anyway.