If you actually watch the demo they show the generated down force.

I dunno I see a fair amount of them driving around.

shutdown -s -f -t 0

Why would you give full credit regardless of outcome? Nonsensical.

No, XP didn’t force install the updates, it would just nag.

I use an old v20 with lineage os as my “work” phone (because there is no fucking way I’m putting their spyware on my actual phone), and boy is it slow.

I wasn’t talking about Kherson, I was talking about naval drones headed for Crimea.

I haven’t dug into this one. There may or may not be a reasonable explanation beyond the stated anxiety over nuclear escalation.

Biden admin of course, who else? They sanctioned russia, which meant no Starlink service was allowed in russian territory. Ukrainian naval drones crossed into russian territory and (foreseeably) lost connectivity.

Why is this bs propagated? US mandated starlink to disable access in russian territory. That’s exactly what was done, so when Zelensky’s starlink controlled drones crossed into russian territory, starlink lost connectivity. Exactly as asked.

It’s ironic because the government-trusting sheeple kept dying from spike protein turbo cancers.

That’s not weird. Sitting on home furniture in the same clothes you sat on a bus means depositing particles of bum vomit and god knows what else on your home furniture.

Just finished replaying gta4 a week ago, I just ignored the relationship bait and had no issues. It’s entirely optional.

Practically speaking.

potential suffering that might happen in the future

WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.

deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them

My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.

Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.

What was the ratio?

Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.

Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.

Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?

I got downvotes for mentioning I’m planning on taking some of our overpopulated deer.

Maybe we should reintroduce wolves instead, eh?

What was the jury m/f ratio?