11
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 11 points ago

Dude, spit the black pill back out. I do say what I really think, and I'm not unemployed or ostracized. Not everyone works in CA at google or some shit.

1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 1 point ago

No, he's not making a strong argument. He's saying if there is enough degeneracy around him, then there is good cause to riot... except rioting isn't helping to fight that degeneracy that he loathes so much. It's just hurting other innocent people. Rioting itself IS degeneracy.

If you disagree, then by all means, explain to me how even in the Weimar Republic it would be doing the sex-trafficked underage daughters any good for WOMP_WOMP_FAGGOT to smash in a store window with a brick, steal a thousand dollars worth of liquor, then light the place on fire.

20
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 20 points ago

By all means, keep going.

Throw more bricks.

Burn more buildings down.

Attack more cops.

Destroy more communities.

It doesn't matter... America will survive your shitty temper tantrum.

...but one day...

...in a few months...

...when you wake up to the news that Trump won re-election in a landslide...

...please send me videos of your reaction when it dawns on you that it was all because of you.

4
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 4 points ago

Nope. Not mother/child prostitution brothels, not tranny banging, not even state-sanctioned human sacrifice and cannibalism is a good cause to riot.

There is never a valid justification for going outside and indiscriminately lighting buildings on fire, cracking people's skulls open, and looting everything that isn't bolted down.

Fighting injustice must be targeted at the injustice. Otherwise you are just another monster.

16
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 16 points ago

There's never a reason to riot.

To overthrow or depose? Sure.

To riot? No.

2
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 2 points ago

She made an interactive worldwide video broadcast of her reaction to a mob killing her sister. This isn't narcissism. She is using the largest, loudest megaphone she can find to tell the world what happened to her sister because of the rioters. Yes, it is the same tool that she'd normally be using to talk about whatever inane, inconsequential shit her life usually consists of (which is what we all usually do on the internet), but that doesn't mean that the format is exclusively for inane, inconsequential shit.

3
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 3 points ago

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY? HE'S NOT COVERING HIS NOSE WITH HIS MASK! SOMEONE CALL THE COPS!

1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 1 point ago

That's some shit Hank Hill would do lol

4
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 4 points ago

I'll never get tired of rubbing the 2016 victory in these piece of shits' faces.

9
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 9 points ago

Don't make fun of this guy. This guy was you at some point. And remember, lots of people would rather continue to be fooled than admit they've been fooled, so don't give them the added incentive of mockery.

3
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 3 points ago

Anecdotal, but at my job we've pretty much maintained (if not gained) productivity since switching to WFH. The same is true for my wife and her office.

1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 1 point ago

Indeed, that's one reason this code is shit -- the way they re-order one of their internal lists during execution is non-deterministic (ie probably skull fucked by the os thread scheduling). Nevertheless, assuming an acceptably-random value is generated whenever your rand() function is called, it's worth pointing out that the whole point of a Monte Carlo simulation is to show that a model converges on an answer or a pattern of answers, regardless of what random values are used from pass to pass. In this case, the failure to maintain determinism is more of a bug than it is an inherent design flaw, and ultimately has no bearing on the accuracy of the answer.

1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 1 point ago

I'm not defending this shit-tastic code or its equally shit-tastic fake prediction. But you should know there's a thing called a Monte Carlo simulation. The simple description of it is to set up a simulation with (sensibly) randomized inputs and then to run the simulation a million times, and once you've got the results, look to see if they converge on an answer or have an otherwise identifiable pattern.

0
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 0 points ago

Selfish? For keeping my hands clean? This is stupid. I'm "spreading" germs from the environment I'm in TO the environment I'm in. That's way more sanitary than a bare handed person unthinkingly scratching their face and then touching stuff, which doesn't happen when you use gloves. Sheesh.

1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 1 point ago

You're describing the wrong way to use gloves and then claiming that gloves don't work. Wtf. Gloves do one thing -- stop things from getting on your hands. And it works 100%. It's up to you beyond that to stop that glove from touching other things you don't want it to touch, like your face, phone, etc. An easy way to do that is to have a glove on your left hand that you use to interact with the world and then keep your right hand bare to interact with yourself and your effects.

-1
DeathBattleFan123 [S] -1 points ago

Gloves aren't to prevent the wearer from spreading disease -- they are to stop the wearer from getting infected by others. And they accomplish that task extremely well.

Surgical masks aren't to stop the wearer from getting infected by others -- they are to prevent the wearer from spreading disease. Unfortunately, they only work against respiratory droplets, not versus aerosols.

2
DeathBattleFan123 [S] 2 points ago

Understood. I'm suggesting we give people an income tax deduction based on the amount of money they have in savings, up to $10k. The idea is to encourage people to save their money by offering tax breaks for people who do.

view more: Next ›