erin

There is absolutely no mayo flavor. I'm a mayo hater and this is also how I make my grilled cheese. It's just a richer fatty flavor than butter, which just tastes like buttered toast with cheese (still good, just not as good).

Consensually choosing to share my location with my wife is not the same as not caring about my data being collected or sold. I don't have any intention to break her trust, but that has nothing to do with why we share location. It's all about safety and convenience. I know when she's working late. She knows when I made it back to my car safely after a night out. I know when she's on her way home, even when she forgets to text me, so I can start cooking. As two gay women in a conservative area, it just made sense.

My wife and I share our location. We both trust each other implicitly and neither of us consider it a breach of privacy, but rather a willing sharing of information. I think if this is demanded of someone unilaterally, it would be both a breach of privacy and trust, but it's just so damn convenient for our lives and makes us both feel safer. If I'm out late in the city to see a friend, my wife can easily see that I'm safe making it to my car and driving home. If my wife is working late and forgets to text, I can easily check and know she's still in the building. As two gay women, it was a no-brainer for us. I would never demand that of someone. It seems like a lot of people in the comments see sharing location as an intrinsically harmful or negative action, whereas it's far more context and consent dependent for me. Hell, I even share my location with a friend for a few hours if I'm doing something sketchy.

Are you mad at fictional characters for their hypothetical hypocrisy lmao

Regardless of the stuff about Ada's tone, it seems like your ultimate point was the classic "paradox of tolerance." I certainly do not see enforcing a safe space as policing identity. Regardless of how respectfully done, deciding when it is okay to respect someone's identity is against blahaj rules. The consistent moderation with no room for chipping away at the edges is what attracted me to the instance. This person broke blahaj rules. They may have broken it politely (I disagree. Tone does not excuse content), but they broke the rules. Banning them for repeated invalidation of others' identities is not policing their identity. Your identity cannot be predicated on the invalidation of others. We have every prerogative to be intolerant of intolerance.

Again, regardless of Ada's tone, the point stands. You keep dancing around that. The rules were broken. This user acted inappropriately for the space they were in. They are not forced to use blahaj communities, and chose to do so while violating the rules. They have no right to our safe space if they cannot ensure it is safe for others. I strongly dislike the "just asking questions" polite veneer of your comments while very intentionally dodging the elephant in the room, which is that the user did wrong for the space they were in, regardless if you agree or not.

I think it's kinda weird to assume there are any intrinsic traits about large, diverse groups of people. There are so many Americans of so many diverse backgrounds, that I think any generalizations we can make are gonna be wildly off for a great many people. It's certainly true that most Americans did not act to prevent the current administration. However, most Americans are completely uninformed, propagandized to daily, and held down systemically so they don't focus on their oppressors. Blaming the people is easy. They should've prevented this. They shouldn't have been complacent. It's their fault for the radical individualism.

I see this happen constantly, whether it's American, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Israeli, Palestinian, British, etc... people, being blamed for the evils, perceived or otherwise, of their government. Often, these people are only as complicit as an abuse victim is to the person that has controlled their life and worldview to suit their own needs. Their actions and beliefs may be malicious, they may be indifferent, or they may simply be ineffective, but they receive the blame that would be more accurately aimed at those controlling their sources of information and communities.

Blaming the system takes more effort. There has been a slow, insidious, and very intentional subversion of American and global politics for decades, and it's handwaved away as conservative buffoonery and incompetence, which while present, is a very incomplete part of a larger picture. This isn't an election that people didn't turn out for. This is decades of the subversion of a democracy, the media, and a gradual pressure placed against the entire working class to keep the focus on putting food on the table, and a new culture war punching bag for each election season. I don't blame Americans. I blame the fascists that have snuck into government on populist platforms, and the people that should have been in positions to act as the safeguards who instead rolled over and gave in to the corruption.

No one is immune to propaganda. I can only hope that we rebuild better.

This might not really apply to you and your beliefs, but I think it's a discussion worth having and considering.

There are (were, I guess) trans woman competing. Why would their presence change their right to compete? Additionally, the studies are few and far between due to very low sample size, but there isn't good evidence proving that trans women have a statistically significant advantage in women's sports after being on HRT long term (2+ years). Most trans women that previously competed in men's sports perform similarly compared to women after HRT as they did to men before.

The conservative "evidence" for trans women having an advantage is simply pointing and going "see!!" any time any trans woman places better than any cis woman, even if they're well within the statistical range of women. If trans people are allowed to compete, are they allowed to ever win? In professional sports, getting lucky in the genetic lottery plays a large role in determining success. Katie Ledecky is incredibly successful due to her practice and training, but wouldn't be nearly as successful without a body conducive to swimming. What's the difference between a cis woman being born with broad shoulders and longer arms and a trans women doing the same? No one is transitioning for a competitive advantage. It's a ridiculous notion. There really isn't a good argument against trans women in sports that doesn't rely on invalidating their gender or vibes-based cherry-picked pseudoscience.

It isn't sustainable. My car takes significantly less damage per mile than a gas only car, and the gas is nearly negligible compared to the pay when you get consistent 40+ mpg. Even then, it's still not sustainable. I wouldn't recommend the job to anyone, but if someone was desperate or really set on it, then it should really only be a temporary stop-gap to something more sustainable.

I cannot see this as a valid and reasonable response to "we aren't likely to see an AI powered socialist dystopia in our lifetime, if ever." AI isn't even profitable for the capitalists that run it, and needs to constantly feed off real humans to avoid decay. It's definitely not doomsaying to see AI as a bubble and generally a grift as it's presented now, when it's likely to fit in a much more specific niche as a tool in the future. Art will stay uniquely human until AI can create without needing constant human training data.

Yep. For this reason, I left my car running when I'd stop, as idling on the hybrid battery was better than needing to cold start the car 50 times a day.

If you don't have a fuel efficient car, I wouldn't even consider it. If you do, you need to devote a lot of time to it before it becomes at all worth it (100 orders in last 30 days, good ratings, and above 70% order acceptance rate). Once you're there, it's basically as profitable as any other service job, but with the caveat that it's entirely on you and your executive function to work enough (very boring) hours to pay the bills.

Edit: also, wear and tear on your car is gonna be worth more than the job in any job where you use your personal car for 100% of the work. I would consider any of these jobs a temporary measure.

I drove down doordash for a while. Trust me, every driver knows how much they're getting screwed. You'll never be more class-conscious than having 30+ interactions with people as broke as you every day, and seeing every possible angle of fellow working class jobs. You do it for one of several reasons: you want some tiny modicum of control in your life through your schedule, you desperately need the money and it's easy as fuck to get a delivery job, or you started it for one of those reasons or something similar, got good enough to be ahead of the curve, and it's now more appealing than finding something else. The last one was where I was at.

I had done the job enough that I was making $18 an hour, well above the average in my area, and despite needing to pay for gas and taxes on a 1099a, it was still more appealing to keep control and flexibility over my life than to do something else. I could take days off whenever I wanted, see friends during the week, and coordinate my schedule with my fiancee easily. You're very aware that you're getting screwed, but you choose the devil you know, as they say.