Connections
Puzzle #871
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟦🟪🟦
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦

Ohhhhhhhhh, now I see it.

$ hollywood

$ cmatrix

$ sl | lolcat

Or the silliest one of all…

$ emacs

I’m confused at what I’m looking at here. Is that a carpet with a cartoon rat on it hung on an exterior wall? Why?

If it makes you feel any better, as an American the first thing I did when I bought my house was to rip out the garbage disposal and install a normal drain instead.

A skit? Is that unusual?

The makeup artists could even lay off the forehead latex, for once!

Apres ca, tu serais deux montagnes!

I’ve been trying to learn French so maybe it doesn’t quite count anymore, but I really enjoy Papaoutai – both the original Stromae version and this Pentatonix cover that introduced me to it – as well as various other songs by Stromae.

I think I see the teacher’s attempted point, that the carbon and oxygen are combined into carbon dioxide

That teacher’s point was nothing but vacuously true bullshit, purely grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to save face. If that were a valid answer, then every element involved participates in both sides of every reaction, so WTF is the point of making a distinction?

Other than blatant bad faith, the only possible way for the teacher to make that argument would be if he’s so incompetent he thinks he’s teaching “alchemy” instead of chemistry and shit’s getting transmuted!

Perez added that “a teacher’s determination of a student’s grade is final unless there is evidence of a clerical or mechanical error, fraud, bad faith, or incompetence. Disagreement with a teacher’s professional judgment alone does not meet these criteria.”

Fine, then it’s incompetence!

“In regards to the exam question, the students observed a demonstration lab during class, accompanied by a lecture that clearly explained that combustion does not always produce light,” Paine said in an email to the Chronicle. “Our staff affirm that combustion does not always produce light.”

This is the most infuriating part: that all the school officials involved kept myopically obsessing over trying to explain why answer choice B wasn’t right, while ignoring that the real issue was their failure to refute the student’s correct assertion that answer choice C was wrong.

The salient issue was that cellulose and oxygen are reactants, not products, and the question of “light” had fuck-all to do with it!

First of all, it was Massachusetts (edit: damn, I apparently can’t tell m-states apart either), not Michigan (although some articles claim he was planning to target some Michigan politicians too).

Second, that’s proving my point, not refuting it. The assertion I was challenging was that it was in “our” (i.e. leftist, or at least liberal) repertoire too, but what you cited was the common case of a right-winger targeting progressives, not the other way around.

Especially when the article is paywalled (or at least login-walled).

It was only half a season for TNG and DS9!

Never forget what they took from us.

Just giving someone $1000 doesn’t stop their landlord from increasing rent by $900 to match

It doesn’t need to; market forces do that. The supply and demand for housing don’t actually change just because the buyers have more money in their budget (to divide among housing and other things) so it’s not reasonable to expect prices to rise all that much either.

I admit, that’s not a super-satisfactory answer, but it’s a complicated and counterintuitive enough topic that nothing I could write succinctly enough for a Lemmy comment would address all possible counterarguments. As such, best I can do is cite some sources that explore it more fully:

• https://widerquist.com/will-basic-income-cause-rent-to-increase/

• https://ubiadvocates.org/will-universal-basic-income-increase-house-prices-and-rents/

• https://ask.metafilter.com/367648/How-does-universal-basic-income-not-mean-rent-going-up-the-same-amount

• https://www.givedirectly.org/how-do-cash-transfers-impact-neighbors/ [this is the “Kenya study” referenced by somebody in the Metafilter thread from the previous bullet point]

In theory, I guess. But when’s the last time that sort of thing actually happened in the U.S.? Even perpetrators of “kirkings” of right-wingers are usually either infighting right-wingers themselves, or are just nutjobs with some motive other than politics entirely (e.g. impressing Jodie Foster).

In the sense that “poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich,” you’re correct that putting a floor on wealth can’t solve the whole problem by itself. But that doesn’t mean it can’t help, especially when you consider:

1. UBI’s ability to lower the opportunity costs for things like retraining and entrepreneurship by helping people sustain themselves during that gap in earning, which gives them power to get themselves out of exploitative work situations. Addressing that power inequality between employers and workers is real, and is something UBI accomplishes a lot better than schemes, especially stuff like welfare with work requirements that do the exact opposite by forcing people to take any job, no matter how shitty, to remain eligible.
2. That the money for it has to come from somewhere, and most proposals for funding UBI involve making other taxes more progressive.

It’s pretty hard to fit all of what you just said into a meme.

I see that now!

Anyway, if what your meme is actually about is people that only use the browser and then refuse to switch but still constantly complain then yeah you’re dead on.

My meme is indeed sort of about that, but it’s even more about pushing back on the other thread and similar sentiments, where their flying monkeys defend their useless complaining and then try to make us out as the bad guys for responding in any way short of wallowing in their misery with them.

Yeah it’s a tough switch. It’s a lot like getting out of a relationship that you know isn’t gonna work, but every time you go to end it you think “hey it isn’t that bad right NOW is it?” and put it off.

A clean break would be faster and easier for everybody involved.

Exactly! And having enablers of that toxic relationship, like the person quoted in that other post, scolding people for making that exact point only makes the situation even worse.

I was using “you” in the general sense the same way the post I was quoting used it, not to address @prettybunnys in particular. In fact, I’m well aware that specific-you was not among the general-“you” I was addressing, as I referenced people with “your [Windows] problems” and specific-you had made it clear that you’re a Linux user. (Cute tattoo, BTW, although I’d have believed you even without the picture.)

Anyway, I apologize for not making that clear enough. I should’ve noted it explicitly like I did in this other comment, but I thought the context was sufficient. Or maybe I just got lazy, and have no good excuse. Either way, personally attacking you was not what I intended.