[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

It also suggests you might be willing to walk away from an incompatible work situation, whether due to workplace toxicity or your own outside priorities, which can be scary to the person you'll be reporting to.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 46 points 4 weeks ago

You're right, but also, why did someone use AI to make this image look worse??

The original is included in this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/networking/your-washing-machine-could-be-sending-37-gb-of-data-a-day

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

That's the line they feed us, for sure. But if you ever actually added up federal income tax, state income tax, state and local sales tax, Social Security tax, property tax and assorted taxes for any instance in which you might come into additional money (capital gains, interest, prize winnings, inheritance, etc. etc. etc.) most Americans would probably be shocked to learn what real percentage of our income we actually pay to the government.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

When you buy keyed doorknobs and deadbolts, there's sometimes (always?—not sure, but def sometimes) a sticker on each package with a code. This lets you look through the available inventory to find and buy additional locks with the same code so that if you need multiple locks for the same house, they can all use the same key.

So no, as others have said, mass produced locks aren't unique, but sometimes that's a benefit.

Edit to add: it's okay that locks aren't unique, because the lock itself isn't really what keeps people from entering locked doors. Mostly it's the social contract. Your house key might unlock several houses in your neighborhood, but you're not gonna try it, because how would you explain yourself if you got caught? And if you weren't worried about that, then you'd probably be okay with just smashing the window...which means that for someone who would violate it, the lock is moot.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Raw milk seems like a fine option for a farmer. Or really anyone that can see the cow from where they're standing. Any farther away than that and you must be nuts

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

This is a fun idea, but unfortunately Amazon's search results are pay to play. (That's why they're always so bad.)

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

There's an undeniable racial component, yeah, but there's also the very real fact that those suffering past abuses were broadly in a different category from the majority of ordinary (white and white passing) American citizens, creating the illusion that they themselves were safe, or could choose to be safe by keeping their heads down.

As soon as the victim is in a position that you yourself could easily find yourself in (like dropping your kid off at school in a residential area), and you can imagine that you might make the same choices (like trying to leave a dangerous situation safely), your own safety is under direct threat.

A lot of people were sad, angry and outraged before, but now they're scared.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

You're probably right, but you'd have to make it to court. Not everyone does..

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Don't do it if you're trying to date your sister.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

The phrase came originally from Wayne's World, which was first an SNL sketch, yeah. Bill & Ted aren't from SNL, though, and predate Wayne and Garth by a good bit. Bill & Ted said "party on," among other things, but not "party time, excellent." That's specifically the Wayne's World theme song iirc.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago

Legally integrated, but I wouldn't say fully. Source: living in the South.

[-] lovely_reader@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago

Not to promote violence, but I'm afraid nothing is likely to change until people are pushed far enough to do more than hope.

view more: next ›

lovely_reader

joined 2 years ago