Fwiw Stanford was basically a scam. The story as it’s usually told is a lie, and its results are in serious contention, even beyond the usual replication issues psychology studies have.

Milgram is a good study, and even seems to have survived multiple replication attenpts, but its results are often overstated in their broader applicability. Notably: there are issues around the idea that it is “authority” that causes people to comply, as is usually claimed, instead of a belief in “expertise” or trust in the system (e.g. that a university-authorised study is obviously not going to kill people). Still, the conclusions are good enough for the purposes of your comment here.

Ah, but postage stamps are completely fungible.

I was thinking of the HTTP verb, you’re right.

You forgot the third group, [email protected]

Some even have sinks in each stall so you can go from wiping your ass straight to washing your hands

See, I emphatically do not want that.

If I could rely on everyone else washing their hands properly it would be great. But I don’t want to have to touch the stall door that has Aleppo been touched by people who haven’t washed their hands after I’ve washed mine. I want the hand washing to be the very last thing I do before exiting, preferably via a push door that I can push with my foot or in a spot that fewer other people would push it.

Why would someone on a help desk be expected to know what POST is? A software engineer, sure, but helpdesk? If it’s needed knowledge…that’s what training is for. Businesses’ expectation that people will come into the job already knowing exactly how you do things and never require on-the-job training is absurd.

Now 3.79

Most of the episode just helped reinforce what I already understood to be the case. But I thought one particularly interesting bit was about how he never really had his dad’s approval, and seeking it (whether consciously or not) is likely a part of why he is how he is.

Fear the Boot, an unfortunately infrequent but excellent RPG discussion podcast. Don’t let the absurd name put you off, the discussions are top notch.

Origin Story, a really great podcast going in to the history of things. Mostly political ideologies (a recent episode was entitled “the myth of cultural Marxism — anatomy of a conspiracy theory”, for example, but their episodes on Neoliberalism and Centrism were also excellent), but also often political figures (the scathing review of Ayn Rand was very amusing, and the more recent Elon Musk episodes were rather enlightening), and the occasional lighter one (like the origin of Super Heroes and more recently Doctor Who). It’s a podcast with few enough episodes and a slow enough release schedule (they do a few episodes one per week, then take a long season break) that it’s really worth going back through the archives to listen to older episodes.

Oh I listen to The Rest is History, the original podcast from the same company. It was going to be one of my answers to the question. Reqlly great stuff.

Ironic timing…

IMO a “simple browser” of this sort should display literally only the content in the HTML file itself. It shouldn’t even view CSS stored in a separate local CSS file, let alone reach out to the web to download more content.

*couldn’t’ve

I think that upgrades your autism to audhd.

The highest-ranked person I’ve received classified intel from is the Secretary of the Interior. I must not be important enough. :(

doesn’t mean that it should be used without consideration for its generally accepted meaning

This is my point. You are deciding that your “accepted meaning” must be the “generally” accepted meaning. That’s prescriptivist. I understood what was meant, because my understanding of the word comfortably allows for this. And since dictionaries generally aim to describe real-world usage (usually listing “archaic” or “rare” where appropriate, which most dictionaries will do with alternative definitions of rape—see attached image), I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that your attempts to prescribe a more limited definition are wrong. Especially given this was seemingly an attempted execution—in a country with rule of law, it would very likely be tried as attempted murder.

To be clear: at no point did I make any reference to rape or the definition thereof. I was only referring to how you and others were using lynch.

We all know the connotations of these terms

Do we? Because I didn’t have any issue with the word as used. To me, a lynching is a violent, usually race/ethnicity-based mob attack on a person. And this pretty well fits the bill.

You’re the one doing linguistic prescriptivism here. The only difference is that what you’re prescribing isn’t what’s in the dictionary, it’s what’s in your own head.

Except that in the context “lynched” is being used in this case, even with a strict “death only” definition, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that “attempted lynching” would have been appropriate. Given that context, and the fact that actually “death only” is not the definition of lynched, can you not see how crying about definitions looks an awful lot like downplaying the severity of this crime? Like when zionists cry about being accused of genocide?

Holy fuck this is deranged