Allergic? You're right! What if an officer is allergic to that pastry?? How dare the protestors bring it!!
Friend of blahaj
They used the little-known "who's gonna stop me?" loophole
Progynova is the Debian logo
I thought the joke here was that your unbalanced parentheses would make me angry (they did))
A guide for US government employees for the next 4 years, the CIA's Simple Sabotage Field Manual
Some more ideas:
I don't understand how people end up married to someone they only kinda like and tolerate. Idk if I'll ever marry because I want to be very sure we love each other and are compatible before making big decisions like that.
I've seen many people take absolutists stances and throw accusations or insults at others who don't. While I applaud that they recognized serious problems, I want everyone to understand why I might take actions that seem to ignore or even worsen those problems: I only have so much power and so many options, none of which are ideal, so I do the best I can with what I have. I might prioritize stopping one bad thing over stopping another; that's not me excusing the other bad thing, that's me playing the cards I have to get the least bad outcome.
Personally, I base my moral decisions on expected outcomes. I would pull the lever in the trolley problem. I understand some people think me a monster for that, and I certainly wouldn't feel good pulling it, but I see it as me net saving people. I disagree with people that wouldn't pull it, but I see where they're coming from and I'm not mad at them (disappointed, maybe). Of course, as well as pulling the lever, there may be options to try helping the one person on the tracks, and we should definitely attempt such a rescue.
This whole topic can be applied to the do-i-vote-for-biden thing that this community seems divided over, but it's much more broadly applicable too.
Anyway, this is just me saying that I don't think the absolutist all-or-nothing approach some people take is a good idea, and I also don't like when some of them call me a bad person for not doing the same.
Sleeping outside is a crime. Sleeping inside is trespassing and also a crime.
Now, I can't find legal text specifically banning that sort of thing, but that definitely seems like a "bill of attainder" and against the spirit of the 8th amendment to to the US constitution. Of course, I know the courts don't actually care, but if they had spines they would.
Suck her dick as well!
A diagram of a "bottom meson" (composed of an unknown quark "q" and an antibottom quark) with an arrow labeled ":3" pointing to a "double bottom Baryon" (composed of an unknown quark "q" and 2 bottom quarks).
Image taken from figure 1 of this article
Two (presumably) girls lying in bed holding hands and looking at each other. The one on the left, labeled "Me" has shoulder-length hair, an uncomfortable :| expression, and is wearing a black hoodie, grey jeans, and sneakers. The one on the right, labeled "Also me" has longer hair, a subtle smile, a blush, and is wearing a dress and high heels.
Edited from this post, on which I commented "I wanna be both".
It makes more sense if you think of const as "read-only". Volatile just means the compiler can't make the assumption that the compiler is the only thing that can modify the variable. A const volatile variable can return different results when read different times.
SmartPHOWNED
The one time I was hit while cycling, I had my attention split 2 ways and was hit by a driver from a 3rd conflict point.
When you see a cyclist doing something dangerous, you make note of that to confirm the idea that cyclists are stupid and reckless. But when you see a driver doing that, you're so used to it it doesn't even register as "all drivers are stupid and reckless".
Who says this is JS? Might be Rust.