Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

How many quarters after Q1 2016 till Marissa Mayer is unemployed?
	1 or fewer
	2
	4
	Her job is guaranteed; what are you even talking about?

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Cardiac posted:

A is London.
B also means very lovely working conditions for the drivers, but hey FYGM. Also provides incentive for the taxi driver to gently caress the passengers according to FYGM.

We have B in Sweden, and I have regularly payed more for taxis in Sweden compared to a similar distance in London.

Why are the drivers in A lacking an incentive to gently caress passengers, if doing so improves their economic outcome?

# ? Oct 7, 2016 14:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 21:10

DONT TOUCH THE PC: Jul 15, 2001; You should try it, it's a real buzz.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Okay, my googling has shown that you have been lying about the whole thing and taxi licensing is still a thing in your country and you have made up the whole premise that the free market is even setting the number of taxis in your city at all!

Licensing is still a thing, but there's no limit. There is a limit for the amount of disabled taxi licenses.

Ireland has been notoriously deregulated as part of their "tech hub" status within Europe, almost all EU-tech headquarters were situated there and I remember some companies being REALLY chuffed about Ireland having non-functional unions or non-existent unions back in the nineties.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 14:56

Blut: Sep 11, 2009; if someone is in the bottom 10%~ of a guillotine

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Okay, my googling has shown that you have been lying about the whole thing and taxi licensing is still a thing in your country and you have made up the whole premise that the free market is even setting the number of taxis in your city at all!

I don't think you've comprehended a single one of my posts. Or whatever you Googled. Of course there is still licensing, people aren't just hopping in random cars and driving off with cardboard TAXI signs on the roof. Drivers still need to apply for and get a taxi license. My use of Dublin as an example is the arbitrary limit on the number of licenses issued was removed, and the public benefited massively.

Cardiac posted:

A is London.
B also means very lovely working conditions for the drivers, but hey FYGM. Also provides incentive for the taxi driver to gently caress the passengers according to FYGM.

We have B in Sweden, and I have regularly payed more for taxis in Sweden compared to a similar distance in London.

This is true, there is a downside (for taxi drivers) to deregulation that 'B' does effectively reduce taxi driving to a minimum wage job. But given its a job that requires little training or skill that's probably an appropriate pay level.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 15:28

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Blut posted:

So you're saying in a choice of:

City A: highly restricted taxi licenses number. Arbitrarily low number set in stone. No chance of getting a taxi at bar-close on a weekend night, or during rush hour midweek ,for upwards of an hour. ie the case as it was in a lot of mid-tier US and European cities until 5 years ago
or City B: A taxi market regulated in quality only, not numbers based, with an ability to get a taxi within 5min at almost all times of day/night. ie the case in certain deregulated cities pre-uber, but now in almost any decent sized Western city with uber

You'd rather live in City A? Because that's the real world implication of arbitrarily low numbers of taxis.

yes, because city A is actively grappling with the negative externalities caused by excessive taxis. you keep ignoring this because you have no defense for it. simply repeating your argument regardless of rebuttal is not a useful form of argumentation. you have no idea what you're talking about

Blut posted:

The key concept that "Yellow cabs spend three-fourths of each shift [driving around, causing congestion]" from the study, and the above post, are also very American specific. In most countries in Europe, where petrol is even now at its lowest recent point around $6/gallon, taxis do not drive around aimlessly looking for fairs. They're either carrying a fair a minority of their shift, or parked at a rank waiting in line for a fair (ie not using road space/adding to congestion) for most of the rest of their shift.

i dont care how taxis are handled in the third world

# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:00

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

Blut posted:

The limits in a lot of cities (take Dublin as one example from above) were/are literally set to please the local taxi drivers, who go on strike (and shut down main roads) when they're raised. Dublin's congestion has a lot more to do with a shoddy public transport system and high car ownership rates than an additional few thousand taxis on the road, who operate largely at weekends at night.

Ohh look, more unsubstantiated claims. I get why this is so hard for you. Your personal experience was that of a lovely union colluding with a corrupt government to suppress the number of taxis in Dublin and that problem has clearly been solved (to you) by total deregulation of the number of taxis allowed to operate. So it is obvious to you that this is the solution to a dearth of taxis from the point of view of taxi users, and that might actually be true.

However, as I and other people have pointed out, the convenience of taxi users is not the only end to be optimized. There are other factors that are external to the taxi drivers themselves that they are no position to price, like congestion and pollution, and that makes taxi drivers (and users) poor candidates for self regulation in a "free market," or just flouting of the laws by Uber, as you have been advocating. Then, you have spent the last however many posts claiming that the known problems for taxis aren't real without any substantiation whatsoever.*

By the way, you don't want to argue that because there are so many more cars on the road than taxis that it is private cars that are the source of the congestion problem, because when you add taxis to satisfy taxi users (your only stated goal), you add it to the current traffic in the city, not some traffic you wish you had.

* All of this (at least, I'm not going back and getting more):
(1) Taxis don't cause as much traffic as cars because they wait at stands.

Blut posted:

In most countries in Europe, where petrol is even now at its lowest recent point around $6/gallon, taxis do not drive around aimlessly looking for fairs. They're either carrying a fair a minority of their shift, or parked at a rank waiting in line for a fair (ie not using road space/adding to congestion) for most of the rest of their shift.

(2) "The limits [on the number of taxis] in a lot of cities (take Dublin as one example from above) were/are literally set to please the local taxi drivers."
(3) "Dublin's congestion has a lot more to do with a shoddy public transport system and high car ownership rates than an additional few thousand taxis on the road."

# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:00

Cardiac: Aug 28, 2012

Subjunctive posted:

Why are the drivers in A lacking an incentive to gently caress passengers, if doing so improves their economic outcome?

Because they are more tightly regulated and are probably not working minimal wage. Also I assume you can report taxi drivers for FYGM.

To become a cab driver in London you have to learn basically all the streets in London which reduces the competition. Funnily enough,even with a regulated market, taxis cost less in London than in Sweden and we are pretty loving unregulated and below so called minimal wage. There is no minimal wage in Sweden.

London has a interesting alternative system to taxis, where flower shops can do on call taxi deliveries due to a hole in the law.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:12

Blut: Sep 11, 2009; if someone is in the bottom 10%~ of a guillotine

@boner confessor if you're unable to use capitalization, and think the EU is the third world well...thats that I guess.

MickeyFinn posted:

Ohh look, more unsubstantiated claims. I get why this is so hard for you. Your personal experience was that of a lovely union colluding with a corrupt government to suppress the number of taxis in Dublin and that problem has clearly been solved (to you) by total deregulation of the number of taxis allowed to operate. So it is obvious to you that this is the solution to a dearth of taxis from the point of view of taxi users, and that might actually be true.

However, as I and other people have pointed out, the convenience of taxi users is not the only end to be optimized. There are other factors that are external to the taxi drivers themselves that they are no position to price, like congestion and pollution, and that makes taxi drivers (and users) poor candidates for self regulation in a "free market," or just flouting of the laws by Uber, as you have been advocating. Then, you have spent the last however many posts claiming that the known problems for taxis aren't real without any substantiation whatsoever.*

By the way, you don't want to argue that because there are so many more cars on the road than taxis that it is private cars that are the source of the congestion problem, because when you add taxis to satisfy taxi users (your only stated goal), you add it to the current traffic in the city, not some traffic you wish you had.

* All of this (at least, I'm not going back and getting more):
(1) Taxis don't cause as much traffic as cars because they wait at stands.

(2) "The limits [on the number of taxis] in a lot of cities (take Dublin as one example from above) were/are literally set to please the local taxi drivers."
(3) "Dublin's congestion has a lot more to do with a shoddy public transport system and high car ownership rates than an additional few thousand taxis on the road."

The issue here is my personal experience applies to every city where uber has expanded to, though. If the public didn't prefer having deregulated taxi markets then uber wouldn't be so wildly successful. People like being able to get a taxi within 5 minutes, night or day. And even if uber is banned (as in Austin) other substitutes will replace it, because the market is clearly there for far large numbers of taxis. The genie is out of the bottle in regards to artificially limiting taxi numbers, and its unlikely to go back in.

My point from the start has been the city with a deregulated taxi market (or an uber presence) is better to live in for the vast majority of the population than one with a highly regulated, arbitrarily limited, number of cabs (as was the case pre-2010 in a lot of cities). Do you disagree?

I've substantiated any claim I've been asked to (ie the raw numbers). Anything I've said is widely conformable through Google (or by asking someone who has lived in Dublin, for example). ie:

- On the lobbying influence/efforts of the taxi industry w.r.t. deregulation in Dublin: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/political-push-behind-deregulation-139255.html
- Dublin's congestion problems are neatly summed up in this, showing how out of whack it is with European transportation norms: http://imgur.com/a/IG5Kj
(from: http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/73801/Car%20ownership%20paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

etc
But feel free to peruse these to begin your study of the taxi industry and congestion in Dublin, if you're that interested in it.

Blut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 7, 2016

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:12

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Blut posted:

@boner confessor if you're unable to use capitalization, and think the EU is the third world well...thats that I guess.

As an aside, it really does piss me off. I remember when you could get probated for lack of a shift key, even in non-D&D forums.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:14

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Blut posted:

My point from the start has been the city with a deregulated taxi market (or an uber presence) is better to live in for the vast majority of the population than one with a highly regulated, arbitrarily limited, number of cabs (as was the case pre-2010 in a lot of cities). Do you disagree?

The city's urban planning system is designed to serve a wide variety of citizens, not solely taxi consumers. Do you disagree?

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:19

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WampaLord posted:

As an aside, it really does piss me off. I remember when you could get probated for lack of a shift key, even in non-D&D forums.

I've just put the anti-capitalization people on ignore. It's annoying to read.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:28

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Arsenic Lupin posted:

The city's urban planning system is designed to serve a wide variety of citizens, not solely taxi consumers. Do you disagree?

look, if you can't boil all problems down into simplistic economic models that produce outputs which just so happen to agree with our anecdotal assumptions then what's the point?

a perfectly spherical taxi industry in a vacuum of rational consumers

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Oct 7, 2016

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:36

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

Blut posted:

My point from the start has been the city with a deregulated taxi market (or an uber presence) is better to live in for the vast majority of the population than one with a highly regulated, arbitrarily limited, number of cabs (as was the case pre-2010 in a lot of cities). Do you disagree?

And again (3rd or 4th time?), this point is unsubstantiated as taxi users are not the only people who live in cities. Let me engage in your rhetorical technique to demonstrate why your arguments are unconvincing. I live in Los Angeles, a city known for traffic. I don't personally drive that much because I live within 2 miles of work. So, to reduce the amount of traffic that I and people like me experience -which I can assure you is far in excess of a tolerable level - I propose to allow people who live close to work (say, within 3 miles) be allowed to use sirens to drive around. People like me don't drive much, most of the worst traffic is on freeways and there are already lots of cars on the road, so it won't change traffic too much and anyone who wants to avail themselves of this program can just move closer to work. As you can clearly see, people like me are in a vastly preferable situation (so why wouldn't we choose it?) and it doesn't really hurt anyone.

Also, I edited out most of your post because you don't even get why your points are unsubstantiated. For example, saying "lots of cities" have their taxis limited to please the taxi union and then posting another link to Dublin alone does not constitute sufficient proof by greater than a full country mile.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:45

Sage Grimm: Feb 18, 2013; Let's go explorin' little dude!

Using Dublin as your example isn't really a sound one. The article you linked to pointed out early on that this city is a special case:

quote:

Taxi deregulation had its roots in a number of reports in the late 1990s. These had concluded that unlike other countries, where taxi licensing had been employed to ensure high standards of vehicles and drivers, in Ireland, and particularly Dublin, the system had been utilised to prevent the supply of taxis matching the demand.
..
With plates only allowing taxis to operate in specific geographical areas, the supply problem in Dublin was becoming particularly acute with demand outstripping cities of similar size due to the capital�s low population density, low public transport provision (subsidies for bus transport being a fraction of what they were in most developed countries) and a high level of tourist activity.

And then the article argues that deregulation hasn't helped all that much, which is contrary to your position! A year later they report quality of service remained static and they had more taxis than London had for a smaller population.

# ? Oct 7, 2016 17:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

boner confessor posted:

The fall of unicorns: a perfectly spherical industry in a vacuum of rational consumers

edit: ok that's better

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 7, 2016

# ? Oct 7, 2016 18:07

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

Blut posted:

And even if uber is banned (as in Austin)

Besides the usual wrong stuff you just keep repeating, Uber isn't banned from Austin, they were asked to perform background checks* and refused. Austin hasn't given them an exception yet like most cities they they leave.

* Doing a name based search of criminal records isn't a background check no matter what Uber says

# ? Oct 7, 2016 20:29

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Sage Grimm posted:

Using Dublin as your example isn't really a sound one. The article you linked to pointed out early on that this city is a special case:

And then the article argues that deregulation hasn't helped all that much, which is contrary to your position! A year later they report quality of service remained static and they had more taxis than London had for a smaller population.

Sure it helped. It helped him get from the bar to his house a little faster. It also helped him by providing a cheap factoid in favor of de-regulation as a general topic. Both of these help ease the pain of existence in a godless universe!

# ? Oct 9, 2016 05:30

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

duz posted:

Besides the usual wrong stuff you just keep repeating, Uber isn't banned from Austin, they were asked to perform background checks* and refused. Austin hasn't given them an exception yet like most cities they they leave.

* Doing a name based search of criminal records isn't a background check no matter what Uber says

It costs ~$30/applicant. This is why they're complaining

# ? Oct 10, 2016 11:50

Marenghi: Oct 16, 2008; Don't trust the liberals,
they will betray you

Sage Grimm posted:

Using Dublin as your example isn't really a sound one. The article you linked to pointed out early on that this city is a special case:

And then the article argues that deregulation hasn't helped all that much, which is contrary to your position! A year later they report quality of service remained static and they had more taxis than London had for a smaller population.

Taxi's were over-regulated in the 90's but that was pure political corruption. Licences were worth up to 100k and owners of them could make a fortune renting them to taxi drivers. Plenty of politicians and their friends were the owners of these medallions. Taxi drivers were also happy with this situation and the lack of competition made it a valuable job. These drivers then would be free propaganda for the government of the day.

Though I wouldn't say it's found a balance. Most taxi drivers complain these days that there's too many to make a living in it. This is further exacerbated by casual drivers who work peak times only.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 13:50

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

From my twitter feed:

# ? Oct 10, 2016 19:41

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Here's the Guardian story. drat.

quote:

Shares in Twitter fell more than 14% on Monday following reports that all of its rumoured potential bidders have lost interest in buying the struggling social media company.

The shares, which spiked last month following speculation of a takeover by companies including Google, fell $2.82, or 14%, to $17.03 in early trading after Bloomberg reported that Twitter was unlikely to receive any takeover bids.

Google owner Alphabet, Walt Disney and Silicon Valley tech firm Salesforce have all been working with investment banks on a potential acquisition of the 140-character service. But Bloomberg reported over the weekend that all of the firms had decided not to press ahead with a bid.

Twitter�s shares already had fallen heavily at the end of last week after Silicon Valley technology news website Recode reported Google and Apple had decided against buying the company, which has been struggling to attract new users and build revenue.

Twitter�s stock market decline brings the company�s share price back below the level it was trading at before the takeover speculation was first reported on 23 September.

Man. How have the mighty blah blah. So of the major social-media players, Facebook is doing just fine, thanks. Twitter is in trouble. Tumblr is in bad trouble. Snapchat may or may not have successfully monetized, but has just diversified into glasses hardware. (WTF?) YikYak hasn't monetized. All the Chinese apps are in their own little walled garden.

Who am I missing?

# ? Oct 10, 2016 20:11

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

It turns out people's attention or shitposting is not actually valuable in and of itself, so in order to be successful businesses....

... oooh shiny

# ? Oct 10, 2016 20:42

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

blowfish posted:

It turns out people's attention or shitposting is not actually valuable in and of itself, so in order to be successful businesses....

... oooh shiny

Twitter should have been charging :10bux:

for signing up.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 20:46

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Dr. AA Hazredstein posted:

Twitter should have been charging for signing up.

Unlike twitor, Something Awful LLC occasionally runs in the black, QED :smug:

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:06

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

blowfish posted:

Unlike twitor, Something Awful LLC occasionally runs in the black, QED

For once in my life, I wasn't being ironic. :shrug:

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:09

Optimus_Rhyme: Apr 15, 2007; are you that mainframe hacker guy?

Where the gently caress is all their money going? Seriously.

Eight. Hundred. Million on research and development. Almost half their total revenue. To contrast this, Boeing, a $96,000,000,000 company spent only 3 times what twitter spends on research and dev.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:17

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

Where the gently caress is all their money going? Seriously.

Eight. Hundred. Million on research and development. Almost half their total revenue. To contrast this, Boeing, a $96,000,000,000 company spent only 3 times what twitter spends on research and dev.

They have like 3000 people they're paying six figure salaries for.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:18

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

The correct solution, obvious to the tiniest of minds, is for Yahoo! to buy Twitter.
_{saves money by having one combined Viking funeral instead of multiple small ones}

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:25

Baby Babbeh: Aug 2, 2005; It's hard to soar with the eagles when you work with Turkeys!!

The gently caress are they even researching? Most of their biggest product innovations have been things third parties developed on their platform that they then bought or copied. I guess there's also hilarious failures like Moments that they developed by trying to copy Facebook.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:28

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Baby Babbeh posted:

The gently caress are they even researching? Most of their biggest product innovations have been things third parties developed on their platform that they then bought or copied. I guess there's also hilarious failures like Moments that they developed by trying to copy Facebook.

Ways to make money?

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:33

Optimus_Rhyme: Apr 15, 2007; are you that mainframe hacker guy?

Arsenic Lupin posted:

The correct solution, obvious to the tiniest of minds, is for Yahoo! to buy Twitter.
_{saves money by having one combined Viking funeral instead of multiple small ones}

You mean AOL right? The company owned by Verizon that will own Yahoo.

Verizon->AOL->Yahoo->Tumblr

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:33

Arsenic Lupin: Apr 12, 2012; This particularly rapid💨 unintelligible 😖patter💁 isn't generally heard🧏‍♂️, and if it is🤔, it doesn't matter💁.

Good point. Add Twitter and call Verizon the free square, and you've got BINGO.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:37

Tars Tarkas: Apr 13, 2003; Rock the Mok

A nasty woman, I think you should try is, Jess.

Baby Babbeh posted:

The gently caress are they even researching? Most of their biggest product innovations have been things third parties developed on their platform that they then bought or copied. I guess there's also hilarious failures like Moments that they developed by trying to copy Facebook.

Look, man, changing "fav" to "heart" is not a light-weight decision!

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:48

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Apparently Salesforce is still in the game? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/salesforce-still-mulls-bid-twitter-194643017.html I hope they buy it and start burning even more cash.

Tars Tarkas posted:

Look, man, changing "fav" to "heart" is not a light-weight decision!

Probably mainly pondering whether it's possible to post more than 140 characters on the internet.

Also my employer spends only about 3x or R&D off a 10x revenue while maintaining and developing hundreds of cloud and on-premise solutions so yeah, no idea WTF they're doing there.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 21:54

Baby Babbeh: Aug 2, 2005; It's hard to soar with the eagles when you work with Turkeys!!

You'd think Salesforce would have learned that enterprise social networking doesn't work when Chatter failed to set the world on fire. I guess they probably think they can use Twitter to better position themselves against Microsoft following the LinkedIn acquisition, despite LinkedIn being the far better platform for basically anything Salesforce might conceivably want do with it.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 22:12

Spazzle: Jul 5, 2003

Doesn't the NSA have a front company they can buy twitter with?

# ? Oct 10, 2016 22:24

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

Twitter is dumb so it's easy to dismiss it but they have always been out there innovating and integrating themselves with things. There is a reason they are the service that became a household name instead of the ten kajillion other companies that were doing basically the same thing. Like name a technology from the last ten years and twitter will have worked with it somehow, and the question is usually "did this have any value" instead of "did they put effort into it".

The tesla has a twitter app.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 22:24

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

Baby Babbeh posted:

The gently caress are they even researching? Most of their biggest product innovations have been things third parties developed on their platform that they then bought or copied. I guess there's also hilarious failures like Moments that they developed by trying to copy Facebook.

Based on having to fill out forms on the subject at a different immense tech company, I think they can get tax breaks for declaring work as research and development, and basically anything open source counts. Twitter definitely has people working on projects that would qualify.

# ? Oct 10, 2016 22:37

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

Where the gently caress is all their money going? Seriously.

Eight. Hundred. Million on research and development. Almost half their total revenue. To contrast this, Boeing, a $96,000,000,000 company spent only 3 times what twitter spends on research and dev.

I know Twitter presents non-GAAP measures.

I guess they're considering things like bandwidth and hosting to be cost of revenue.

I wonder if they classify their audience/user research as R&D or as COR. I imagine that would be a substantial cost.

Their SG&A line is bloated and gross, but hey I guess they need that deluxe primo office space and to pay college kids a comfortable six figgies

# ? Oct 10, 2016 23:10

sarehu: Apr 20, 2007; (call/cc call/cc)

So Soylent is moving fast and breaking people.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/reports-of-violent-vomiting-diarrhea-from-bars-has-soylent-on-the-defense/

# ? Oct 11, 2016 01:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 21:10

PenguinKnight: Apr 6, 2009

quote:

After these reports, we have retrieved remaining bars from our consumers and have personally consumed many of the remaining bars without adverse effects

"Hey these bars make me throw up and give me diarrhea"
"that's no biggie, we'll take them back *opens box and shoves a handful of bars into mouth* "

uh

PenguinKnight fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Oct 11, 2016

# ? Oct 11, 2016 01:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

«‹›1517 »