I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.

It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, “I don’t own guns and I’ve never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I’d fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it’s what I want.”

Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There’s a lot of fear of “scary guns” based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they’re okay with because they don’t look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.

Because of the American football maneuver, you’ll also hear Americans using the term “punt” in other contexts as well, frequently in a business setting.

Because a punt in football is effectively saying, “Achieving success in the short term is impossible, impractical, or just too much of a hassle…so we’re going to forget pursuing it for now and we’ll try to score again later.”… you often hear things in a meeting at work where maybe there’s some sort of an opportunity that for whatever reason, the team or company isn’t ideally positioned to take advantage of, so they’ll say, “Ehhh, let’s punt on that issue.”

It’s the pitfall of nearly every setting where “because magic” is a valid explanation for really anything.

When magic is shown to enable, say, telekinesis, the immediate logical conclusion is that the same method should apply to mundane transport of goods and people. Then when you see the same people using horses, cars, etc. it absolutely necessitates an exploration of the limits of the magic and why it works in one situation but not the other.

Yesssss…in American football, a punt is an action or a play that happens when a team is down to it’s last attempt to move the ball to a certain yard line. If they succeed, they earn more plays but if they fail, the opponent gains possession at the spot.

A punt is a special play where the possessing team drop kicks the ball, using their last play to give the ball to the other team, but the drop kick sends the ball a long distance down the field. A good punter is often capable of sending the ball 50+ yards down field, as well as gauging distance and direction so that the ball gets close to the end of the field without going over (which resets its location much closer to the starting point). While scoring points is obviously usually the better outcome, a good punter is invaluable to any team.

There’s a bit more to it, but that’s the gist.

Oh now don’t start that again!

They call it McConnelling.

Sitting here at 5 months out from election day…when will we finally get some good quality pandering?

I was so, so hyped for Squadrons, even had a HOTAS setup on my list…then the game came out.

Everything I heard, even from people who loved it, totally turned my view of it sour, and I was so glad I didn’t sink any money into it.

Maybe someday we’ll get a SW fighter sim that delivers.

It’s not like he’s got credibility consequences for lack of follow through at this point.

Implying there was ever a point where this wasn’t true.

But you’re working in that scenario because you’re being paid.

If you had that job where your employer only had a say in what you deliver (ignoring the obvious pitfalls of that arrangement), and they suddenly stopped paying you, or started only paying you half…would you still be okay with it?

If not, then you’re working because you like being paid, not because you want to work.

On the flip side: if you had some sort of situation where you got paid a comfortable living that allowed you to cover all your expenses, indulge some luxury, and save…and you got this money no matter what, just for waking up…would you still work every day? Or work until your employer was satisfied with your output each day/week/pay period?

Some might…most specifically (I would think) people whose jobs provide some sort of personal fulfillment like teachers, caregivers, etc. but I think the vast majority of people would take the money and live lives that offered personal enjoyment and fulfillment, doing what they wanted to do, not what an employer (who at that point isn’t their source of pay) would like them to do.

But let’s say you could also make that living wage just by existing. In a world where you wake up each day and a day’s worth of your living wage was automatically deposited into your account whether you worked a job you liked or even if you went out for a walk in the park…would you still choose to work every day?

Of all the reasons to not want Hillary to be president, this has got to be one of the most absurd takes I’ve encountered.

In Charlotte

Both are used and acceptable ways to write it in the US.

Also, are your screw size integers based on any units at all? If so it’s just another metric vs standard argument, and if not, it’s even less intuitive than even inches, because it’s just a case where one just needs to already know and be familiar with that sizing system, like shoe sizes or something.

You do you, but if I’m up early enough to have breakfast, I’m unhappy about that, so I’m not gonna get hung up on levels of processing or grams of carbs.

Give me fried pig and chicken ova. And lots of coffee.

Sausage gravy over biscuits is one of the very few things that make me appreciate the South.

Y’all have something special there.

These are not interchangeable for me.

Pancakes are a filling main item, dressed with syrup. Toast is a vehicle for egg yolk, jelly/jam, or as a sandwich foundation.

Right?

I get in the mood for some of those some of the time, but most days?

Gimme 15 cups of coffee, don’t talk to me until the third cup, and get outta my fuckin way when it’s time for the coffee shit.

Right?

“Nobody wants to work anymore!”

Like no shit man.

News Flash: nobody has wanted to work ever. They work because the compensation lets them live the lives they want outside of work. If nobody wants to work for you, it’s because you either aren’t willing to compensate them enough to do that, or your job makes them so miserable that it’s not worth it for them to trade away that much happiness for the compensation.

Or both. In lots of cases it’s both.

The more the old lies are proven as lies, the closer we get to the truth:

Just as important as “getting the job done” is the notion among many employers that they truly believe that with their payroll they are buying human lives and happiness. That if they are paying a worker for their time and labor that they are entitled to also dictate how that person feels about it…and if that worker is not sufficiently miserable, then they can be squeezed further.

I used to think that it was purely about money…that the idea was that if a worker ever got “all caught up” and had free time, then they should be generating more wealth for their employer in some other way…but then we had the pandemic.

The pandemic where lots and lots of workers had to suddenly do the whole work from home thing. And in that time, these employers were thrilled to go along with it, since it meant continuing to make money. And in that time, most office workers eventually turned out to be happier and even more productive.

…yet in the wake of the pandemic, many of these employers have chosen less productivity in exchange for bringing their employees back to offices. The only explanation for bringing employees back in who were happier and more productive from home is that these employers value the image of control and the ability to make their workers unhappy more than they value productivity and money.