Saw the headline: “Haha, theonion really nailed this one”

What’s the inverse of eating the onion?

Oh, so, keep doing it? Even harder? Gotcha.

Indeed and–interesting corrollary–if we accept the concept of reduced accuracy simulations as axiomatic, then it might be possible to figure out how close we are to the “bottom” of the simulation stack that’s theoretically possible. There’s only so many orders of magnitude after all; at some point you’re only simulating one pixel wiggling around and that’s not interesting enough to keep going down.

There is not, as far as I know, any way to estimate the length of the stack in the other direction, though.

But if the real world sets up a simulated world which more or less perfectly simulates itself

This is the crux of the logical error you made. It’s a common error, but it’s important to recognize here.

If we’re in a simulation, we have no idea the available resources in the simulation “above” us. Suppose energy density up there is 100x as high as ours?Suppose the subjective experience of the passage of time up there is 100x faster than ours?

Another thing is that we have no idea how long it takes to render each frame of our simulation. Could take a million years. As long as it keeps running though, and as long as the simulation above us is patient, we keep ticking. This is also where the subjective experience of time matters. If it takes a million years, but their subjective “day” is a trillion years long, it becomes feasible to run us for a while.

And, finally, there’s no reason to assume we’re a complete simulation of anything. Perhaps the simulation was instantiated beginning with this morning–but including all memories and documentation of our “historical” past. All that past, all that experience is also fake, but we’d never know that because it’s real to us. In this scenario, the simulation above us only has to simulate one day. Or maybe even just the experiences of one PERSON for one day. Or one minute. Who knows?

The main point is we don’t know what’s happening in the simulation above ours, if it exists, but there’s no reason to assume it’s similar to ours in any way.

Right, the distinction I’m making is this isn’t just “normalized” but actually the correct spelling. As in, if a newspaper editor saw it written as “drive-through” they would be obliged to correct it.

On the one hand, a sign like this definitely did have enough room for the full spelling of “through”. There seems to be no reason to abbreviate it.

On the other hand, isn’t drive-thru just, like, its own noun now? Part of me thinks this was always spelled correctly.

We already oppose it. Shoot your guns if you’re not a fucking coward.

He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.

There’s probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.

The example they set was “throw bricks at cops”, and I agree, the world should listen.

Donald Trump has never served anything except himself and maybe a few tennis balls.

I mean, no shit. Didn’t she win her first election with 89% of the vote or something

Are these things literally Little Tykes Cozy Coupes like wtf

Nobody actually cares about whatever weird fuckin she did in the theater. We focus on it because it’s hypocritical.

You could go more petty than this, but this is plenty

This change is likened to expanding a CPU from a one-lane road to a multi-lane highway

This analogy just pegged the bullshit meter so hard I almost died of eyeroll.

Damn it’s gonna take me a while to make a whole cup but I’ll get started

IDK Swiss law but I’d still bet they start losing assets quickly if they don’t report to jail.

You’re a fucking mod on this sub? Grow up

Ah, but here’s the real hypocrisy: they absolutely do eat those foods. Southerners of any color love fried chicken and watermelon. That doesn’t stop them from being racist about it. Racism doesn’t have to make sense.

Watermelon and chicken were two of the ways that black people started supporting themselves after being freed from slavery. They were agricultural products they could raise with very little investment and start building wealth from essentially nothing. Racists, not wanting them to prosper, mocked them for their preference for these things, but it’s important to note that the mockery didn’t stop them from supporting themselves with the foods they were able to produce. To this day black people enjoy these foods, and there’s nothing wrong with them enjoying the foods. If you’re with your black family, and you want to celebrate your own heritage, this isn’t actually a bad way to do it.

However.

When a corporation, particularly a corporation run and staffed by white people, makes a choice to celebrate a significant black cultural date by presenting people with foods that white people used to mock black people, it reads as mockery. (This is especially true in North Carolina, a place where racism is rampant and open.) At best, this is tone deaf; someone along the way should have said “hey, do you think any black people will feel like you’re doing this as a racist attack?” And if any one of them had answered “yes” to that question, they wouldn’t have done it. It made it through the pipeline to being something they actually did because nobody in the decision chain cares about the racist overtones of what they were doing.

If you’re going to do anything to celebrate black history or black culture, failing to ask any black people what they think about it is racism. Cultural sensitivity would have meant getting some input from a few black folks about how they think it should be celebrated–and, had they done that, they would have avoided this mess.

And, just in case anyone was wondering, the VP in charge of this situation is white.