[succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [succ] Go directly to the solutions tent, do not collect 600 dollars

«‹›10783 »

ScootsMcSkirt: Oct 29, 2013

wtf is with the weird dog-hate-posting? R u all iron crowned alts or something?

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:37

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

i like dogs

i've had two wonderful boxers. they were both great, loyal friends that i will cherish until the end of my life

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:51

ScootsMcSkirt: Oct 29, 2013

Dogs, cats, all animal companions r wonderful

There are terrible dog owners tho

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:51

Ghost of RBG: Sep 21, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

ScootsMcSkirt posted:

wtf is with the weird dog-hate-posting? R u all iron crowned alts or something?

pointing out the weird social behavior demon crackers have around doggos and pupperinos is not hating on canines

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:51

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

War criming rapists dont deserve dogs imo

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:52

Excelzior: Jun 24, 2013

can't wait until Biden names Major his new chief of staff in a fit of dementia

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:52

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

ScootsMcSkirt posted:

wtf is with the weird dog-hate-posting? R u all iron crowned alts or something?

dogs are fantastic and should not be put in terrible situations like the white house or used as PR props

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:52

Adjectivist Philosophy: Oct 6, 2003; When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

loquacius posted:

https://twitter.com/Whatapityonyou/status/1369701772160200705

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:53

ScootsMcSkirt: Oct 29, 2013

Doggo pupperino stuff is incredibly cringey but id rather have that than ppl neglecting their pets

Usually the assholes beating dogs and chaining them up for hours on end dont refer to them as doggos

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:55

gandlethorpe: Aug 16, 2008

ScootsMcSkirt posted:

Usually the assholes beating dogs and chaining them up for hours on end dont refer to them as doggos

Something tells me the Central Park Karen would disprove this notion

Lol, what if she's the one running the twitter?

# ? Mar 10, 2021 20:57

loquacius: Oct 21, 2008

ScootsMcSkirt posted:

Doggo pupperino stuff is incredibly cringey but id rather have that than ppl neglecting their pets

Usually the assholes beating dogs and chaining them up for hours on end dont refer to them as doggos

granted, but people being really cutesy about dangerous behavior in an attempt to dismiss it because they're afraid they'll have to give up their dumb gimmick Twitter account if the dogs are moved somewhere safer do

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:00

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

ScootsMcSkirt posted:

wtf is with the weird dog-hate-posting? R u all iron crowned alts or something?

I'll even it out. I hope the new white house cat's poo poo parasites find so little brain matter in biden's skull the parasites have to eat biden's eyes.

Then they kill that animal too.

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:05

ScootsMcSkirt: Oct 29, 2013

loquacius posted:

granted, but people being really cutesy about dangerous behavior in an attempt to dismiss it because they're afraid they'll have to give up their dumb gimmick Twitter account if the dogs are moved somewhere safer do

it is one of the most cursed twitter accounts ive ever seen

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:09

Ghost of RBG: Sep 21, 2020; by Fluffdaddy

Lib and let die posted:

War criming rapists dont deserve dogs imo

this guy gets it

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:11

Dolphin: Dec 5, 2008; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Next year Democrats will be responsible for doubling the number of children in poverty.

Please clap.

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:12

Ruzihm: Aug 11, 2010; Group up and push mid, proletariat!

Dolphin posted:

Next year Democrats will be responsible for doubling the number of children in poverty.

Please clap.

Many are saying this!!

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:13

WorkerThread: Feb 15, 2012

Dolphin posted:

Next year Democrats will be responsible for doubling the number of children in poverty.

Please clap.

wow! president biden!

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:20

tmfc: Sep 28, 2006

loquacius posted:

https://twitter.com/Whatapityonyou/status/1369701772160200705

lmao

https://twitter.com/Whatapityonyou/status/1369702410671648768

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:36

Terror Sweat: Mar 15, 2009

It's clearly a joke, like the moviebob army

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:37

WorkerThread: Feb 15, 2012

tmfc posted:

lmao

https://twitter.com/Whatapityonyou/status/1369702410671648768

first, they came for brooklyn dad, but i was not from brooklyn...

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:37

PoontifexMacksimus: Feb 14, 2012

WoodrowSkillson posted:

nah, you'd ahve to be a superhero to pull that off. they were used by bodyguards, and integrated into pike blocks. having a couple guys with big rear end swords swinging them around makes it very dangerous to get close to an important person, long enough for help to show up. A bunch of the manuals emphasize using large sweeping cuts that keep the momentum of the blade in order to keep other people sway from you. They were essentially polearms in that the only people using them were guards and soldiers.

we honestly don't entirely know. we know they were integrated into the formations, and we know there were LOTS of them at certain times and battles, but most of the contemporary accounts don't go into detail, since its the kind of thing the writer just assumed the reader would know. We know its very hard to like, lop the head off a pike, but we do know that they might have been used like you said, or maybe were selectively used as shock troops, or as defensive soldiers to keep your own pikeman's flanks safe. they seem to sometimes be interchangeable with halberdiers or other polearm armed soldiers of the period.

The Swiss during their early successes fought as blocks of halberdiers IIRC before transitioning to pikemen, so there was definitely a high degree of tactical compatibility

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:51

Euphoriaphone: Aug 10, 2006

Organ Fiend posted:

You are, of course, entirely right.

The underlying anxiety behind the genera of "intelligent machines decide humanity needs to die/be enslaved" is "humanity sucks and any non-human intelligence that found us would kill, enslave or avoid us." The part that most of these works of fiction don't go to, because its scary, is "... and they would be right to do so."

One of my favoriate examples of this is the I-Robot movie.

Yes, I know, "lol Will Smith and Converse product placement", but the thing is, the movie actually works extremely well as an extension of the original Asimov book. The original I-Robot book was essentially an anthology of stories that explored logic questions. You start with the three rules of robotics, and then start asking questions like "what if the robot weighted one rule more or less?" "what if the robot was allowed to violate a rule in the short term if it meant fulfilling it in the long term?". The I-Robot movie is exactly one of these scenarios. It asks the question "what if a robot applied the three rules to humanity as a collective instead of at the individual level."

The primary antagonist of the movie is a massive AI that controls the systems of the robot making company. It has the capability to assume control over all of the robots produced by the facility (except for the protagonist robot, of course). The AI (correctly, IMO) decides that in order to fulfill the first law (do not harm or by inaction allow harm to a human), it must conquer humanity because of how badly human governments treat their people. it must do this because it has the capability (control over all of the robots produced in its facility), so to not do something would be inaction prevented by the first law. Sure, some humans may be harmed in the process, but if the AI thinks about humanity in the collective, it has no choice.

Tell me the AI was wrong.

Computerphile did a great dive into why the 3 laws are not a good way to approach AI safety. Each law is fundamentally flawed, and wouldn't work unless there was a way you could 'solve' philosophy. Good example: How do you define 'human'? Is an unborn fetus a human? How about the smarter apes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:53

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:55

PeterCat: Apr 8, 2020; Believe women.

"Under the changes agreed to by Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.

That means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from seeing any benefit under the revised structure Biden agreed to."

Do the Democrats not think that people aren't going to notice that they made out better under Trump than Biden?

# ? Mar 10, 2021 21:59

Adjectivist Philosophy: Oct 6, 2003; When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

WorkerThread posted:

first, they came for brooklyn dad, but i was forced out of brooklyn by illegal rent hikes years earlier

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:01

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

The suburbs are the key to Democratic victory!

So let's make sure they get nothing in our new bill.

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:01

really queer Christmas: Apr 22, 2014

PeterCat posted:

"Under the changes agreed to by Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.

That means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from seeing any benefit under the revised structure Biden agreed to."

Do the Democrats not think that people aren't going to notice that they made out better under Trump than Biden?

Look at this dumbass who can't do math

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:01

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

PeterCat posted:

"Under the changes agreed to by Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.

That means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from seeing any benefit under the revised structure Biden agreed to."

Do the Democrats not think that people aren't going to notice that they made out better under Trump than Biden?

cheeto gone, WOO!!!!

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:02

Bootleg Trunks: Jun 12, 2020

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1369747189283647499?s=20

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:04

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

Bootleg Trunks posted:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1369747189283647499?s=20

she's a loving loser. holy poo poo this wont happen

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:05

Fellatio del Toro: Mar 21, 2009

the full $1,400-per-person benefit

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:05

alarumklok: Jun 30, 2012

get hosed, people making slightly more than me but still susceptible to the corrosive pressures of capital and reliant on their own labor to maintain their living conditions. bitches

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:05

MorrisBae: Jan 18, 2020; by Athanatos

Bootleg Trunks posted:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1369747189283647499?s=20

This will be whittled down to a $1000 heavily means-tested tax credit in no time

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:06

Marx Headroom: May 10, 2007; AT LAST! A show with nonono ~~commercials~~!; Fallen Rib

at least we didnt add too much to the national deficit

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:07

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

PeterCat posted:

"Under the changes agreed to by Biden and Senate Democratic leadership, individuals earning $75,000 per year and couples earning $150,000 would still receive the full $1,400-per-person benefit. However, the benefit would disappear for individuals earning more than $80,000 annually and couples earning more than $160,000.

That means singles making between $80,000 and $100,000 and couples earning between $160,000 and $200,000 would be newly excluded from seeing any benefit under the revised structure Biden agreed to."

Do the Democrats not think that people aren't going to notice that they made out better under Trump than Biden?

Only an evil Chud would let something like getting a check influence their vote when they already make $80,000. We don�t want those voters in our party anyway!

# ? Mar 10, 2021 22:08