I personally don’t think so. It’s more a gender thing than a body looks thing. I’m nonbinary but I haven’t been able to pursue transition for health reasons. So I still look like a cis male. I’m 6’2" tall, my shoulders are wide enough that I legitimately have to walk sideways through some doors to keep from shoulder checking a wall. I’m just large and don’t like being reminded that most everyone that sees me just sees a man.

My dysphoria would never allow me to wear something like that. I can’t stand anything that reminds me that I’m built like a fridge and look like I’m cosplaying a Sasquatch with alopecia.

I thought I had 0 ass for years. Just like you, nothing but bone. Pants always sliding right off me because I had nothing to hold them in place. Turns out, I actually just developed Posterior Pelvic Tilt from all the compensating I did for my bad ankles without realizing it. Also that apparently I have a really high waist and wide hips for a AMAB person and I’ve basically been wearing my pants way too low all this time.

Ben if he had actually made it as a screenwriter in Hollywood.

Of course. The only question they ask is “Does this make my side look bad?” If the answer is No, then this is Just, Good, and the Will of the People. If the answer is Yes, then it’s a False Flag, a Psy-Op, or the work of the Deep State.

This particular kind of hearing might not necessarily need to conclude before the election to be impactful. Trump’s lawyers arguing with a straight face that his alleged attempt at subverting the election was actually an official act just before the election could be fairly damaging on their own.

My understanding reading this is that they’re worried that some of their evidence might have just become privileged and inadmissible via the whole “can’t use testimony or communications between the president and his staff” part of the ruling.

I doubt that the SCOTUS ruling actually saves him here. It seems to me at least that the prosecution is agreeing to postpone sentencing mostly to go back and make sure that they aren’t likely to lose too much of their evidence on appeal.

The payment by Cohen to Daniels for her story happened before the election. The problem is that a bulk of, if not potentially all of the fraudulent payments to Cohen from Trump to reimburse him didn’t happen until he was president. I don’t remember exactly when the repayment started.

The worry I guess is that while the crime itself doesn’t involve official acts, some of the evidence of the crimes used in the trial might have just become privileged communication that can’t be used as evidence. I don’t think anything has changed personally reading it, but I’m no lawyer. So they might have agreed to postpone the sentencing as a bit of caution to review everything to make sure that too much of their evidence didn’t just become inadmissable. Basically, it seems mostly like a bid to make sure they don’t get torched on appeal.

They’ve pulled that one a lot recently, haven’t they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn’t even actually passed yet?

A weapon to surpass Metal Gear

Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They’re great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I’m absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they’ll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.

Wouldn’t be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump’s personal lawyer. So there’s pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.

That said, I have no doubts that they’d find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he’d have to go through normal appeals first, he can’t just go straight to SCOTUS.

“No, you don’t understand… They’re made of meat.”

#include <stdio.h>

int main() {

Long long x = 0x7165498511230;

while (x) putchar(32 + ((0xC894A7875116601 >> ((x >>= 4) & 15) * 7) & 0x7F));

return 0;
}

Might be wrong on a few things here as I haven’t done C++ in a while, but my understanding is this. I’m sure you can guess that this is just a very cheekily written while loop to print the characters of “Hello, World!” but how does it work? So first off, all ASCII characters have an integer value. That 32 there is the value for the space character. So depending on what ((0xC894A7875116601 >> ((x >>= 4) & 15) * 7) & 0x7F)) evaluates down into you’ll get different characters. The value for “H” for example is 72 so that first iteration we know that term somehow evaluated to the number 40 as 72 - 32 = 40.

So how do we get there? That big number, 0xC894A7875116601 is getting shifted right some number of bits. Let’s start evaluating the parenthesis. (X >>= 4) means set x to be itself after bit shifting it right by 4 bits then whatever that number is we bitwise AND it with 15 or 1111 in binary. This essentially just means each iteration we discard the rightmost digit of 0x7165498511230, then pull out the new right most digit. So the first iteration the ((x >>= 4) & 15) term will evaluate to 3, then 2, then 1, then 1, etc until we run out of digits and the loop ends since effectively we’re just looking for x to be 0.

Next we take that number and multiply it by 7. Simple enough, now for that first iteration we have 21. So we shift that 0xC894A7875116601 right 21 bits, then bitwise AND that against 0x7F or 0111 1111 in binary. Just like the last time this means we’re just pulling out the last 7 bits of whatever that ends up being. Meaning our final value for that expression is gonna be some number between 0 and 127 that is finally added to 32 to tell us our character to print.

There are only 10 unique characters in “Hello, World!” So they just assigned each one a digit 0-9, making 0x7165498511230 essentially “0xdlroW ,olleH!” The first assignment happens before the first read, and the loop has a final iteration with x = 0 before it terminates. Which is how the “!” gets from one end to the other. So they took the decimal values for all those ASCII characters, subtracted 32 then smushed them all together in 7 bit chunks to make 0xC894A7875116601 the space is kinda hidden in the encoding since it was assigned 9 putting it right at the end which with the expression being 32 + stuff makes it 0 and there’s an infinitely assumed parade of 0s to the left of the C.

I guess it’s a special kind of character called a ligature. They apparently are characters for combined operators. So in this case it seems to just be >>= all as one character?

Shit, I knew I was doing something wrong all those years ago.

Most likely just awkward rounding when the screenshot was taken. A lot of the time those post age indicator tags just count the number of hours between it and you then each multiple of 24 is a day without caring about when the actual date changes. So the first could easily have been at like 7pm one day and the second like 11am the next day and they’d both get abbreviated at 6 days ago if you were looking at it at like 4pm when you haven’t quite hit the next multiple of 24 hours.

Wouldn’t it be more like a 1.25% increase for most people since that part of the payroll tax is split half and half between employers and employees? I might be reading it wrong but sounds like they’re proposing raising the entire 12.8% or whatever it is payroll tax that much. So it’d go from like 6.4% to like 7.7%.

Technically the US is sending lots of weapons to Russia. Ukraine are even being real Bros about it and trying to deliver the munitions first cuz Russia keeps misplacing their stuff. Not their fault Russia is doing a very poor job of accepting their deliveries.

Okay very basically this whole thing started with a hypothetical posed to a bunch of women about which they would rather run into while alone in the woods; A random man, or a bear. A lot of women chose the bear. Reasons varied from “The worst the bear will do is kill me,” to “At least I know the bear wants to kill me,” with a general theme seeming to be that whatever tangible threat the bear posed was preferable to the uncertainty of wondering whether or not a random man would assault them.

The poster’s stated goal with the hypothetical was to get men to think about why the women were choosing the bear. Instead a lot of guys took it as a personal attack, like they were being punished for the actions of other men. Many started attacking the question, insisting that bears are way more dangerous than virtually any man. This led to a lot of dismissive responses of the criticism like “This is why women choose the bear,” or talking about women’s safety being more important than men’s feelings.

I’m simplifying a lot but that’s the basic gist of it.