Right, see, those are relevant because they show the value of that inspiration. Inspiration that could have brought many more valuable changes to her life if she still had it, but sadly the park service stole that inspiration from her, along with many potential benefits it could have brought her if they'd just let her remain blissfully ignorant of the true identity of the inspiring bigfoot she thought she saw.

I had a housemate who fried sausage patties and eggs in my cast iron skillet every morning for a couple of years. Gave it a good wipe and that's it. I'd cook other things in it sometimes and wash it up if needed. The seasoning on that thing developed into a deep black that was so smooth you see your reflection in it and you could fry an egg without oil and it came off clean with just a nudge from the spatula. It was beautiful.

We went our separate ways and it quickly degraded back to a more normal "good enough" level of seasoning. It was great, but I'm not frying up a fancy breakfast every morning for it.

Nothing you couldn't recover from unless he managed to crack it. I'd wipe it down, and hit it with brake parts cleaner. If I was still nervous about contamination, I'd put it in an oven with the self cleaning function and run it. That should burn it back down to bare metal. Then, s good scrub with dish soap to remove any residue and a good seasoning, and you're back in business. I don't know if I'd personally skip the heat clean step or not, but I'd definitely put it back in usage.

The analysis I read from a lawyer explained how Wisconsin's state laws on self defense are weirdly complex, and due to the exact order of events, under those laws, his intent technically didn't matter, and that's why it was inadmissible evidence. In most states it would be admissable, and he would be guilty. He even listed the laws out and while I don't recall any of the details now, it did seem perfectly logical to my layman's understanding. So it's not that the judge was biased, it's just that Rittenhouse, through dumb luck, happened to fall through a legal loophole. Wisconsin needs to fix it's laws, because it's abundantly clear he wanted to kill those people and morally speaking, I consider him to be an unrepentant murderer.

It's not an official requirement anywhere I've heard of, but I do recall cases where people have noticed police departments declining to hire applicants who scored too high on their aptitude test. I think someone even sued over it, but the court found that being too smart was not a protected class, so the department was within their rights to do that. Or something like that, it's been a while since that story broke.

I'll just repeat someone else's idea I saw elsewhere on Lemmy. She and Walz should challenge Trump and Vance to a marksmanship contest down at the gun range. He'd never go for it, but the image is hilarious. Admittedly, it would lose Harris some support from her base, but it would lose Trump a lot more from his to see him being shown up in such a visible way on one of his base's favorite topics. Harris has stated that she is a gun owner, and you know she's the type to take safety and skill training before she ever bought one, while on the other hand, if pansy-ass Trump has ever handled a live firearm in his life I will eat my hat. Both VP candidates have military training, but I'd still expect a pretty big skill gap between a decorated career infantry NCO and a newspaper staffer in a uniform.

I'm imagining that his wife will never hear the end of it. "See honey, and you said I didn't need to carry two guns around all the time. Well look who was right about that."

U.S.: Please don't attack Taiwan.

China: You're trying to reverse psychology me into attacking, but I won't be fooled.

U.S.: Oh, good. So, you agree not to attack Taiwan?

China: I will if I want to and it's none of your business.

Took me a minute, but it's comparing the story to observed hermit crab behavior.

They won't be expecting it, so that's exactly what I plan to do. And don't call me Shirley.

or with parental consent.

Eww, that line tells you all you need to know about this guy. And the fact that this is actually legal in some states is disturbing.

I can't help but think of this from the wizard's point of view as a 4chan green text.

be me, an edgy young wizard. Want to pick a really cool wizard name and come up with "Charles LeSorcier."

mfw the older wizards all make fun of my name.

get in an argument with a local noble and lose my temper. claim I put a curse on his whole family line that they will each die when they are 30.

remember I haven't learned how to do it. go home and try to figure out how to cast a blood line curse. it's too complicated, I can't figure it out. Can't ask the other wizards now because they already heard about the curse and they'd just make fun of me more.

make a secret lab in the noble's basement and spend the next 10 years stuck there trying to figure it out. still fail. time's up, he turned 30. if the noble doesn't die they'll all know I lied. finally give up and just sneak into his house and murder him. make it look like an accident.

mfw the other wizards fall for it. they all think I'm alright now. maybe they will forget about the bloodline thing by the time the noble's kid is 30.

the bloodline thing is all they want to talk about. 18 years later I have to murder the next one. the other wizards are super hyped I pulled it off, want to be my friend now. none of them know how to cast a bloodline curse either.

mfw I'm stuck for the next few centuries hiding in a noble's basement and murdering them every couple decades to cover my lie.