[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 14 points 3 months ago

I live in Saskatchewan, which is as land locked as it gets in Canada. And for some reason, my city has a Red Lobster. I don't think I've heard anyone talk about going to it because who would expect a seafood restaurant all the way out here to be good? I have no clue how they're making enough money to operate.

(Also, nice pfp! 🐾 )

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 16 points 5 months ago

Implying that Jewish people at large need to be told not to murder children because of the actions of Israel is actually anti-Semitic. Citing parts of the Torah to slander Jews when the topic is about Israel is anti-Semitic.

There are Jewish activists who oppose Israel (and Israel abuses them for their activism when they live there, or outright bans them from ever visiting Israel if they live elsewhere). And there are Jewish Palestinians too.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 43 points 5 months ago

The rust compiler holds your hand, wraps you in blankets, makes you hot chocolate, kisses you on the forehead before it gently and politely points out what you did wrong and how you can solve it step-by-step. It would never think of something as heinous as swearing at you, shame on you for insulting my wife's honour like this.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No, still on the restaurants side. Like yes, it was a mistake and they should have presented it earlier, but asking for a burger to be done medium isn't a common thing here in Canada. They might not have thought about the waiver until then.

Edit: my point here is that this article is presenting the waiver itself as some kind of wrongdoing or indictment about the restaurant's quality/safety. To me, this seems wrongheaded and the timing of the waiver being brought out seems more like "whoops we forgor" thing than a "desperately covering our ass" thing -- since again, medium burgers aren't really a thing here.

I'm not going to fault the hotel for trying their best to please customer requests and the customer being Pikachu shock faced when he's asked to not sue the restaurant for accommodating his McDeath Burger extra value meal.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 42 points 7 months ago

Furry here and just want to say: isn't this entire discussion super disrespectful to the important job that animal control personnel actually do?

Like, animal control has an important role in protecting communities from animals and helping animals that are injured. They shouldn't have to be dragged into this stupid outrage farming.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 21 points 7 months ago

I'm not saying that discord servers for support are a good solution -- I think the problems with archiving and search alone should disqualify it as a support platform.

But forums have their own problems. I think it's weird that forum advocates don't seem to consider why it started to fade as a medium. Individual accounts for each forum, the need for active moderation of threads for relevancy, and practices that made for negative user experiences like rules against necroing are all valid reasons (among others) for why people moved away from forums. And I can't think of a great way to prevent the "I need help!!" thread titles besides having moderators or approvals.

Knowledge management is hard, there's a reason why library science is a master's level degree lol

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They're also useful for separating multiple lists when using a comma would make it look like an item is an extended list.

So let's say I want to express:

"My contacts are:

  • Jessica, Cook (as in a job title, not a name)

  • James, MD (as in the professional certification, not the name 'MD')

  • Doug, ABC (maybe to show that Doug works at ABC)"

If I said:

"My contacts are Jessica, Cook, James, MD, Doug, ABC."

There's no clear indication of what is a list member and what is a new list. But this:

"My contacts are Jessica, Cook; James, MD; Doug, ABC."

is a bit clearer. (There are probably better examples but I'm shooting from the hip here lol)

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 42 points 7 months ago

I agree with the sentiment of this post, but these numbers are silly.

$150m would barely build a bus fleet transit system, nevermind the maintenance, operating, and personnel costs for the fleet (and completely forget about actual long term transit solutions like rail at that cost figure).

And $1b stadiums are outliers -- our city got into controversy over our stadium which costed around $250m. Not many municipalities are loaded enough to be getting into billion dollar capital expenditure decisions.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 16 points 8 months ago

In addition to the list of explanations for why disabled people can exist in a fantasy setting that chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone provided, I'll also just say:

Using diegetic explanations for why a problematic aspect exists in a piece of fictional media does not address the substance of the problem. The problem is that disability is often not represented in fantasy stories. Pointing out that there's an in-universe explanation for why this may be the case doesn't solve the lack of representation. These stories are fiction, and you can add any explanation for why disabled people exist as easily as you can erase disability completely.

This video does a good job of explaining this some more: https://youtu.be/AxV8gAGmbtk?si=YRvXjpZv_YP9Z5sC

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 91 points 9 months ago

Pretty much yes. The only one I'm not 100% on (besides the scout skin, since that was after I stopped playing) is the engineer prosthetic. I feel like that weapon came out a while after TF2 was made (but I can't check that right now so don't take my word for it).

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 34 points 11 months ago

Generally speaking, you will be asked to swear or affirm that you are going to tell the truth, and that you understand the consequences of not telling the truth. Whether you do a whole ceremony about it or not, it doesn't really matter -- but the court will want to know that you are competent to testify truthfully and that you know that you're not allowed to testify to things you know aren't true.

If you're asking "can you be forced to testify?", the answer is "Yes but it depends." If you're competent to testify and the officers of the court deem your testimony important, they can subpoena your testimony. If you have a reason to contest it, you can -- but "I don't want to" isn't good enough.

[-] malle_yeno@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago

I actually didn't get it for a second, so I do appreciate your title.

view more: next ›

malle_yeno

joined 1 year ago