Ya but, what's wrong with ham sandwiches?
No onions or peppers!
Readit Newsesparrohack commented on Eating well is a portal into Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” electricliterature.com/ea... · Posted by u/Caiero
esparrohack commented on Ask HN: Are there things that Flash did that we still can’t do with today’s web? · Posted by u/sendos
>People think pretty things are better quality. You do too.
some people think pretty=better quality
I am not one of them - I think better quality=better quality
>Boring gets forgotten and replaced. Boring is not ubiquitous.
Boring is ubiquitous - Diesel engines are boring. Diesel engines are ubiquitous. Apache is boring. Apache is ubiquitous. Wordpress is boring. Wordpress is ubiquitous. Reinforced concrete is boring. Reinforced concrete is ubiquitous. iOS is boring. iOS is ubiquitous. 1/4-20 bolts are boring. 1/4-20 bolts are ubiquitous. SQL is boring. SQL is ubiquitous.
Boring doesn't get "forgotten and replaced" - it gets used by everyone everywhere ... the very definition of "ubiquitous" :)
Boring doesn't equal "ugly" - that you think it does seems to speak to your lack of understanding of the nature of engineering: engineers love "boring" because boring works. Boring is reliable. Boring lets you build bigger things because all those boring things Just Work™
Yeah see. You need to read other stuff than engineering blogs.
I don’t care how you feel. Everyone likes prettier things. Where’s your proof that’s false?
You’re making up your own definition of boring. It’s just a bunch of talking points I’ve heard forever.
I’ve read the same stuff you did. But nobody outside of tech could call diesel “boring” tech
I misunderstood. I thought we were having a discussion, but I can see you're looking to deliver a monologue. I'll leave you to it.
Lol. All I did was respond to the Adam Sandler move with my own. I'm just trying to speed this up and get to the good stuff already.
Apparently, if it was the kid wearing the BDSM gear, it wouldn't feel like the same thing. It would feel wrong.
Of course, if you, or anyone reading this feels different, speak out.
Why do you want to know that when you've acknowledged in a parallel thread that that wasn't what happened? It's hard for me to read this any other way than a deflection so that you can discuss a different set of events, which didn't happen, where you feel your arguments would fair better.
Given that we're already talking about a hot-button issue which is the subject of conspiracy theories, that seems dangerous.
Yeah, you're trying to catch me on a typo, but it's not gonna work cus I already acknowledged it.
I do know I hit a nerve with that particular scenario. I got all I wanted. Ok, so let's just move on. Let's get to the fun stuff.
So the line stopped at her wearing the BDSM gear. Why? Why not cross that line? Why is it ok for the bear to wear BDSM gear and for her not to?
I'm curious why, if you believed you made a mistake, you didn't edit your comment at the time to avoid propagating misinformation (as the 2 hour edit window was still open when you made this response acknowledging it as a mistake)?
I personally am not familiar with this photo and don't really want to see it, so yes, your comment could have mislead me.
There's no ulterior motive. I just messed up. I fixed it as soon as I got called out on it without objection and I left it there so people can see what the issue was.
If you are going to participate in this discussion, you need to keep up. You're attributing malice where there is none. That means you have to see the picture.
I'm not saying you can't say anything, just that I'm going to dismiss you out of hand.
The child was next to some glasses of wine. Why does that make you clutch pearls exactly?
Have you seen Big Daddy? The Adam Sandler film? Is that also on this level? Feels like the same thing. Child actors in an adult piece of media with sexual and violent and otherwise adult themes.
The thing is I just don't care how you feel. You haven't explained how the kid can consent to this photo shoot or why it isn't sexual abuse.
I want to know if you think it's ok if the kid wears BDSM gear. Yes? No?
Deleted Comment
I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too
I made a mistake but everyone knows what picture I'm talking about. It's not a lie.
So it was a child carrying a doll that had BDSM gear. But that's funny cus if the girl was the one in BDSM gear, that would make it wrong? Is that the line?
Deleted Comment
I've seen it. It's a child with one of their stuffed animal purses in BDSM gear. And there's some wine in a shot. And there's text for a SCOTUS ruling that child pornography is not protected speech.
I'm honestly not seeing what's so grotesque about it all? Feels tame as far as fashion stuff goes. Wouldn't bat an eye in the '90s.
I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol.
That's actually sadism.
I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is?
On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know what I'm doing when it comes to art.
Why should I be cool with sadism?