This could be a great platform, but almost completely ruined by an unnecessarily pretentious font.
dnick
Maybe don’t draw art that you want to own on there?
Do you refuse to throw a piece of paper away because the landfill then owns it? If for any reason the thing you’re trying to convey is private and you want to retain ownership, then obviously don’t use it, and it’s great for you to call that out so others are aware. But to vehemently dismiss some functionality because you don’t find the utility worth the cost is short sighted and childish.
Tuvo Tornado has been practically plug and play for me. Be ready to spend a lot of time designing, printing, testing, redesigning, reprinting. Not necessarily because of the printer, but just a normal part of the process.
And don’t be afraid to print part of a design and stop the print just to verify the footprint or general dimensions are good. It takes extra time and guaranteed ‘failure’ from a fully usable part, but much better than waiting a full 5-10 hours for a full print just to realize the holes on the first layer are offset, or the walls are 5mm too close for your use case.
Narrator: It is the point of the strategy
‘But we told the pediatric hospital we were going to bomb them. All those children should have gone somewhere else’ - Israel (probably)
They’re not set up by the prison, you still have to arrange the visitor yourself. If you can manage that on death row, one might assume you could do just as well outside of prison?
That’s a big assumption there, and I think people are going to find out just exactly how hard it is to compare renting to owning after this ridiculous bubble again. Renting isn’t any more expensive than owning, you just don’t end up with equity….which sounds like a horrible trade off in view of the crazy bonus homeowners found in this market where the equity jumped ridiculously upwards. But all these guys have the chance to see their investment turn upside down and the equity will look more like a noose than a pile of cash.
Well, to be fair, they mostly just made an ass out of him…on your side it just resulted in wasting time trying to figure out what he was talking about. If you had repeated his assumption it would have put you in the same spot.
I think the correct phrase is when you assume it makes you an ass. Not quite as clever, but more accurate.
Seems like your biggest hang up is the word ‘contract’, which you have assigned a lot of concrete properties to. Would it be easier to understand if they used the word agreement, and described it in softer terms like the general agreement everyone in the world has that punching someone in the face is not an acceptable for of greeting? I mean, no one has said that, and you haven’t personally gone up to everyone and stated this and shook hands on it, but it’s still something everyone agrees on.
The social ‘contract’ is like that, it just uses an unnecessarily official sounding term in it, but ultimately is just the understanding that some concessions have to be made to deal with other humans. The terms of the contract are really to vague to ‘sign’, and when people start referring to more specific terms things can go of the rails pretty quickly, but there is still an implicit agreement. It’s like living in an apartment where you didn’t sign the lease…sure you’re not legally bound by the terms in the same way that someone who did sign the lease is, but your still bound by them in some ways simply by living in the apartment. In the same way, continuing to live in society is the way the ‘contract’ gets signed.
It’s the same contract you ‘sign’ with your friends or co-workers. People, especially in this thread, break it out as some solid ‘thing’, but it’s like any other ethereal concept that gets referred to by a concrete word. English is hard and not every word brings along every element in every instance. You could say that an ‘agreement’ must have a written, or at minimum a spoken set of terms, but you could have an agreement not to physically fight someone just by a few movements of your body, and ‘break’ that agreement by broadcasting one set of signals and then taking a swing at them.
I think the point is that it's difficult to attribute that to communism in any meaningful way where you're comparing it to non-communism. Like if those 100 million people would have died anyway, how to do you say 'it was communism that did it' since maybe more would have died under the next most likely form of government that would have been in it's place. How many people have died for Democracy, assuming that both world wars and countless other ones were fought to defend it.