Wow, you do seem trustworthy! Same late 90s/early 2000s timeframe?

Spelling was one of the few bits of information you could get about a person without them directly telling you, so it’s interesting that even a “face” is enough in those circumstances.

The standards were different back then

Yeah, if I wanted to see what’s happening on reddit I would just be there instead

Maybe use contact cleaner?

https://www.homedepot.com/p/WD-40-SPECIALIST-11-oz-Contact-Cleaner-Quick-Drying-Electric-Equipment-Cleaner-with-Smart-Straw-300554/307599950

I assume it’s UK/EU’s expanding social media laws that are driving this, in addition to Discord’s imminent Initial Public Offering coming in March. They’re trying to clean house to show how profitable they can be, the same way Reddit created their walled garden by restricting third-party connections prior to their IPO.

It’s bog-standard enshittification to please the shareholders.

Are they still good? How long do VHS tapes last?

In a healthy relationship, yes, be trustworthy and you’ll gain trust.

“Who was it, honey?” “It was Bob. They had a baby. It’s a boy.”

Man, commercials just used to live in your head like that. This was for 1-800 collect or one of the many, many copycats, right?

Just make sure to bring a mop and a bucket for that WAP

Thanks for picking up on the sarcasm, I was worried it might not be apparent enough, but it’s hard to judge with this medium.

The point I was making with the reply, of course, was that the narrative of ICE only going after hardened criminals is ludicrous on the surface of it, and even if one were to somehow believe that, the numbers simply don’t bear it out.

Ah, I see the worst of the worst rape-murdering narco-immigrants who are here only for violence have finally decided to almost shoot their most feared and hated enemy.

I think plasma should just be one of the commonly accepted Christmas decorations, you know? Quit fucking around with those other, lamer states of matter and just give the people what they want.

In my mind the rules are clear on that: to use deadly force there must be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Potential future harms can’t even begin to be accounted for, so the standard has to be judged with those immediate circumstances in mind.

Even in that situation there are means to deter a threat or determine a person’s intent prior to employing any sort of lethal force. There’s nothing justifiable about this.

I don’t know, man, I think I might just stand up and walk out on him

Was it the head of the USDA withholding funds? I was under the impression that the administration said there were no funds, and then there was no way to release the funds, and then that it would be too complex to do so with any expediency.

Why are they appealing the ruling, do you think?

Is it? What is the more nuanced view?