My theory had been ‘amburger in a cockney accent

an 🍔

Going crazy trying to think of what word you use for 🍔 that starts with a vowel.

Oh, and also I used to always get the Santa Fe chicken Gordita at Taco Bell until it went away.

I think Apple’s emphasis on the privacy and security stuff would have happened anyway, because they’ve been positioning themselves as privacy focused for several years now.

I definitely see your perspective, but mostly wanted to make sure I wasn’t overlooking some obvious downside in my risk assessment.

I figure my chances are low that I will get into the situation where an authority demands access to my phone but I also don’t have the opportunity to lock out biometrics. Like if I get pulled over I just hold power and volume up buttons for three seconds and biometrics is off. That said, it certainly doesn’t eliminate my risk completely, and I wouldn’t consider anyone crazy for just opting out completely.

Regarding biometrics, I’ve felt that one advantage is that if I’m in a public space, I don’t have to worry about someone watching me enter my password over my shoulder. If I got into a situation where someone is physically overpowering me to get my finger onto my device against my will, I’m probably going to give them whatever password they want so I don’t get a beat down.

I think this is where the specific definition of “nice” is crucial. I think it’s very possible to still be “nice” while also being confrontational or standing up for things, and in fact, doing it nicely but without backing down can sometimes be extremely effective.

I know the “nice” you are referring to, where someone uses it as a shield for uncaring, selfish behavior. I’d of course rather have someone who isn’t so “nice” who earnestly tries to do the right thing than that kind of nice.

If it’s a clear sign of disrespect, can you say why the person wanted to disrespect you?

Wouldn’t that give an extra incentive to raise the retirement age?

I’m like that with turkeys. They are hilarious weirdos.

“I don’t really like X, but as long as they don’t then do Y I guess it’s okay”

They always do Y

It’s not a weird caste system. It’s just that people have always primarily just used SMS in the US, and if the people texting all happen to have iPhones, then there are some extra features tacked on (from the perception of the end user). Having been in many many large group chats for various activities and events, where it’s never 100% apple and just SMS, absolutely nobody cares at all. It’s just that maybe some teens and tweens use the colors to judge and exclude, which they famously find justifications for doing in every generation, and probably even that is overblown by the media.

There simply was never an incentive to kind of force everybody to move over to e.g. WhatsApp, and people don’t bother to do something like that en masse without a need to.

You might be the only one for whom these words makes sense

That’s just cruel

No. You aren’t getting it. The Christian god created every aspect of the universe. Light and dark. Up and down. You are still thinking about our universe, in which these negative things are possible, and how you would have to be restricted in what you do in our universe in order to prevent you from doing certain things. But god could have set all the parameters of the universe differently such that they just didn’t exist at all. You wouldn’t miss them or be prevented from doing them. It would be like if there were a fifth cardinal direction in an alternate universe, and someone in that universe thought “if god prevented me from going in that direction, I wouldn’t have free will anymore”. But here we are, with only four cardinal directions, and free will. We aren’t being stopped from doing anything, it just isn’t part of our universe and doesn’t even make sense in it.

It doesn’t matter what you tack on, it doesn’t change my point — the only way humans could “screw it up” is if God made all the negative and horrible shit part of the universe. All you are saying is that God made a universe where there was no evil or suffering actively happening, but the concepts existed and were possible — because they ultimately happened and only possible things happen. And God chose to make them possible things as omnipotent creator of everything that exists.

The Christian god created every aspect of the universe and how it works. He therefore could have created a universe in which there was no such thing as evil or suffering, and given people in that universe free will. So even that doesn’t hold up.

It’s sorta like how we value Wikipedia, which curates information, but other enshittified for-profit curators of information are trash. I don’t want the trash, but I also don’t want no curation at all. I value good curation. And Wikipedia shows it is possible to have good, or at least not garbage, curation of content.

That’s sort of like saying I need to stop being afraid of setting the world record in the 50m dash. It’s not fear that prevents me from doing it, it’s the way my body is constructed that’s the problem. You’re treating something systemic as though it’s a collective personal failing of each voter.

The good thing is that, unlike with my body and the 50m dash, it is possible to modify our election system to make it possible (and even inevitable) that we have successful third party candidates. This is no easy feat, and I imagine the way to do it is probably by making changes at the state and local level and expanding it from there. But there is no quick way to do it. In any case, simply trying to vote third party in spite of our existing system (especially at the national level) is going to go the same way it has always gone. Even if you make a blip or even a big splash, you’re swimming upstream the whole time, pushing against the system correcting itself back to stability. We saw it with Perot in the 90s when his Reform Party died out really fast.

It’s not that they are just doing childish nicknames, they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better, it’s just that the only things you notice are things like the childish nicknames because… that’s the sort of thing that grabs people’s attention which is the reason they are trying out that tactic as well!

You yourself probably don’t slog through the boring articles, interviews, press statements, and so on, where they just present plans and ideas rather than headline grabbers. If you did, you wouldn’t paint such a simplistic picture, or wonder if it must be some conspiracy involving thousands of people to purposely lose.

His campaign has put out a number of different types of messaging about what makes him better than Trump aside from this, but — surprise, surprise — you’re only aware of this one, because it grabs attention, which is why his team is trying it!