FourPacketsOfPeanuts

joined 1 year ago
[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 7 points 1 week ago

Someone, somewhere is getting off to this...

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 11 points 1 week ago

C'mon, you're smarter than that

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 5 points 1 week ago

The dog was a decoy

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 6 points 1 week ago

One of the first PC games I played in 92.. can't believe I'm still playing it

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 55 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I regularly forget what year it is though...

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 10 points 1 week ago

Tbh honest I was surprised Biden was even a consideration back in 2020, he was too old even then and it made the criticisms of Trump's age and mental health not land so well. The moment it was a close call in 2020 the plan should have been 'popular dem by any means necessary'. Not, double down on aging incumbent when they rarely do better on re-election. I can't tell it if was hubris or a complete failure of the party apparatus to believe it could come up with someone more appealing than Trump..

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

As a Brit I'm not immersed in American politics day to day. My (unqualified) take from a million miles away went:

"Oh, Joe Biden got elected thank god"

"Oh, he's promising to only serve one term, good that's completely sensible"

"Joe's running again? What? Could they not find anyone better? This isn't going to go well at all..."

"(during that debate) Oh well, looks like Trump's going to win.."

"Hey, Kamala looks like she would have won if this had been the plan from the beginning, not a sudden fumble when Biden's brain melted beyond repair on live TV.."

Seems like - from my point of view- the main culprit was hubris on Biden's part ever attempting a second term. And the inexplicable failure of the whole party to not force him out of that self destructive choice. Other candidates besides Kamala likely could have won, just seemed like any Dem candidate would be fatally undermined by starting a late campaign.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.

OIOS was not able to independently authenticate...

OIOS are being churlish since it's obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don't say "we saw evidence and disagree with it". They're saying "yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn't get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we'll still act on it".

But that's to be expected if what they've been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.

Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they're saying "ok, fair enough, we'll fire them".

Doesn't that show you there's at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I use Boost on android, it works well. There are quite a few to try.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 121 points 1 week ago (3 children)

"we heavily biased the network against trains and now it's just saying the optimal car consists of several metal struts connecting just two thinned out wheels that the driver sits on top of and propels themselves using pedals. It was busy redesigning intersections to have clear safe lanes for these bi-cycle 'cars' with plenty of trees / room for pedestrians when we pulled the plug..."

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not up to speed on exactly how spam filters blacklist domains but I strongly suspect if Gmail thought spam was coming from email.facebook.com then it would restrict facebook.com too. That's the only reason I can think of for creating such a clunky domain; it's that a neater looking sub domain won't avoid the problem - hence having to register something completely different.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It beggars belief. Just why? Even "if" you were off the mindset that women are chattal and only good for bearing strong male fighters, you'd want to make sure your "herd" doesn't die during its task, right?

This is just wanton cruelty. Can't even call it "bronze age thinking", because the greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Assyrians, Babylonians all knew better than this.

What's the outcome? More women die in childbirth and complications. So the demographic will skew towards a male heavy country. Always gone well that, men sat around in poverty, no family to look after, just guns and Islam to occupy their time..

view more: ‹ prev next ›