This fucking guy. I hope he gets soundly defeated in November and I never have to hear or read about some dumb shit he said ever again.
This fucking guy. I hope he gets soundly defeated in November and I never have to hear or read about some dumb shit he said ever again.
Not meaningless, just flawed
No wait nevermind they were just between the couch cushions here. Haha that’s so funny I don’t know why I would assu- … wait… WHY IS THIS ON THE NEWS
I hope they finally launch it officially, it’s been such a long time. I’m mostly hopeful that if they do launch the Steam Deck then they might also launch future hardware as well without such a big delay.
We’re a family here! You know, one of those toxic shitty kinds of families where the obligations only go one way and we all just pretend that’s cool, 'cause we’re a family!
They are often found residing on or near couches though
You’re right and I really wish you weren’t.
My name is Connor, I’m the android sent by Cyberlife
Yeah, I agree she is at fault for spreading harmful and fucking racist misinformation online. At the same time though it must be wild to have a president candidate pick it up and run with it. It’s a shame it took this kind of experience to make her see the potential harm of her actions.
He wants a perfect body. He wants a perfect soul.
Lol indeed. Well this has been fun, you have a particularly delicious lack of self awareness that I always appreciate in these sorts of discussions so I look forward to seeing your next very helpful and clever contribution in future threads.
Have fun!
I’m not expecting to make any kind of point, I’m just giving you a well deserved ribbing for being an asshole. It’s strictly for entertainment purposes.
If you think the only explanation for someone taking issue with you is they are stupid or don’t understand sarcasm, I really don’t know what to tell you.
As I said before, I admire your confidence even if it is sorely misplaced. If you don’t want to listen to me though there’s this neat button right under my comment there that says ‘block user’ if you don’t wish to read my replies. Just trying to be helpful, of course!
It’s not that I don’t like your tone, I’m always down for a sarcastic quip. What I don’t like is dishonest people. You must think we’re all incredibly stupid if you expect anyone to believe your intent was to help by pointing out the upvote button.
I do admire your confidence, however misplaced, and your commitment to embodying your username though.
I really hope you’re not suggesting that you honestly think someone didn’t know about the upvote button? What a silly thing to imply that your sarcastic comment was supposed to be in some way actually helpful to someone.
You know if you don’t think a comment adds to the discussion there’s a purpose built button for you to express that exact sentiment? It’s right below the one you pointed out in your very helpful diagram.
Finished watching the rest of The Orville. I really enjoyed it!
I’m trying to say… exactly what I said. That your message didn’t tell the whole story. In fact it’s not much of a stretch to say it’s actively misleading. I’ll try and do more to articulate why, see if you agree with me.
You said:
The 1 child policy only ever applied to around 30% of the population anyways. It was just Han Chinese in major urban centers.
First of all, the statement itself is actually false because whilst it was changed after a few years, it did in fact apply to everyone initially so you can’t truthfully say that it “only ever” applied to 1/3 of the population.
Secondly, the 35.4% figure is of people who were subjected to the original one child policy restrictions. There was still a one child policy in place even for rural people except in the case that the first child was a girl. Given this happens about 50% of the time, effectively around 67% of families would still be restricted to one child, even under the revised policy. I’m neglecting the exception for minorities as by definition they are a small share of the population.
So yes, I maintain that what you said did not provide a complete or particularly accurate picture. It’s true that the policy wasn’t as simple as “nobody can have more than one child ever” but your comment was about equally accurate as that statement I would say. By saying the policy only ever applied to about 30% of people you are in my opinion misrepresenting the sheer scale and impact of the policy.
Hopefully that helps to explain why I felt the need to comment, but feel free to tell me if I’m wrong or misunderstanding something.
I don’t think this quite tells the whole story. This is what I found in Wikipedia at least:
China’s family planning policies began to be shaped by fears of overpopulation in the 1970s, and officials raised the age of marriage and called for fewer and more broadly spaced births.[3] A near-universal one-child limit was imposed in 1980 and written into the country’s constitution in 1982.[4][5] Numerous exceptions were established over time, and by 1984, only about 35.4% of the population was subject to the original restriction of the policy.[6]: 167 In the mid-1980s, rural parents were allowed to have a second child if the first was a daughter. It also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities under 10 million people.[7] In 2015, the government raised the limit to two children, and in May 2021 to three.[8] In July 2021, it removed all limits,[9] shortly after implementing financial incentives to encourage individuals to have additional children
Having Elon anywhere near government anything is a terrible idea and he’s an awful human but what’s this about the EV market? I thought it was doing fine. Twitter though yeah that has been just…a large wtf per minute value for sure.
Has anyone told them they can probably use AI to search for opportunities for lawsuits?