Th4tGuyII

If the bulk of those 3 million pages are truly duplicates of existing pages or unrelated to Epstein, why not release them? Why not get that doubt out of the air?

Considering the fact that Trump's DOJ were practically forced by congress just to release the redacted mess that they did, I sincerely doubt that their refusal to release the remaining 3 million pages is in good faith.

There's almost certainly damning evidence in those remaining files, but the chances of us getting to see that are slim to none - as it'd all be redacted anyways.

It would've been easier for them to just spill ink all over the files and call it a day.

Any big event in the afternoon/evening will just completely ruin my morning, as I will be unable to think about anything else

Exactly this. These folks can't see past their faces, so they never empathise with an issue until it knocks at their door.

Then suddenly they want an exemption because their issue is legitimate, unlike all the others before them who were so surely undeserving of help, unlike them

Its very rare to see any of these folks come out the other side realising that they weren't just an exception to the rule, and that those "undeserving" were treated unfairly just like them.

Not that I care about it, but mBin definitely does have a lifetime reputation score you can find on someone's profile if you really care to see it

Did you mean "we didn't"?

I'd say you got me on that one, but my hone's internet connection was so shite I basically didn't have it until the 2000s.

Besides you guys had ARPAnet, I'm sure you could make do with that haha

(Now we just need a Centennial to come in here and say we're both young for having had computers full stop)

Alright, calm down fossil. There's less time between you and us, than there is between us and today - ergo we're all getting older here.

I'd argue trying to avoid yet another subscription by paying upfront was an honest and good faith strategy. The problem was assuming Microsoft also acts in good faith, and wouldn't just take the money and run like they have just 7 years in.

Honestly for things like this, I would struggle to be convinced that these folks aren't entirely within their right to take back what they already bought in good faith by pirating it.

After all, perpetual means you bought a license to use that program for life, regardless of whether Microsoft wants to uphold that or not.

While it is certainly true that the world seems to constantly want to enshittify around us - modern news networks have very little incentive to balance that perspective with any actual good news. Their incentive is to keep your eyes on their content for as long as possible - that gets them the most influence and AD money.

And of all the types of News they can show you, it is negative news - or rather ragebait news - that keeps your eyes eyes glued for longest. So guess what they're incentivised to show you most of?

This applies to social media companies too - in fact any company that relies on news to pull you to watch ADs has this incentive, which okky makes the world feel even shittier than it is.

Which is a long way of saying you need to know when to pull yourself back out, appreciate your hobbies and the world around you, because the online world isn't going to do that for you. There's a time and a place to care, but caring about these things you realistically don't have any control over all the time is only going to hurt you more than it inform you.

Well that sucks, the disinformation network just got a much broader reach.

Guess I'm glad I never bothered with Roku

Alright, so knowing of the numerous scandels involved in the retro gaming collection market, this is almost certainly either a backdoor deal to inflate value and was never actually sold, or money laundering.

Okay, that's true for fresh produce with a minimal shelf life. But we also do that for shelf stable (like dried, canned, jarred) foods which can much more reasonably be donated after their display date.

And that's assuming some sort of centralised donation scheme, and not just mandating the stores donate to a local foodbank or such - which would make it a bit more feasible to donate some fresh produce.

Do you think industrial safety standards that companies spend tonnes of money on maintaining every year just popped out of thin air or the good will of companies?

Hell no. The mega-corps at least would be chucking children into factory machines 7 days a week like back in to early 20th century if they thought they could get away with it.

If you want companies to do something they're otherwise not incentivised to do, you regulate it into existence. Force their hands just like Governments did in the past, and have now become increasingly less willing to do because of blatant corruption.

The easiest path in my mind is a one-two combo...

Firstly you give minimal liability to the food donor, so as long as they made a good faith effort to check the food wasn't bad before handing it over you can't be sued (I.e. if you're giving a batch of cans, you'd check them for defects like bloating or cracks/dents).

Secondly, you create criminal liability for throwing away non-defective shelf stable foods (such as dried, canned and/or jarred foods) for companies over a certain size (to prevent from screwing over small businesses that may not have the logistics to ensure consistent donations).

Those two things create a pathway by which donations can be made with minimal risk, and disincentivise the route of least resistance (aka. Throwing it all away).