I think with memes, there's something of an implicit promise of at least some degree of comedy. I get the sentiment here about proprietary vs open source operating systems but there doesn't really seem to be even an attempt at being funny besides maybe the way the characters are drawn which, given that as memes, they are recycled art used to establish the format, they don't really elicit much of a laugh because there's not even an expression of humour through the original artwork.

This isn't really a commentary or a parallel or satire on that distinction between open source and proprietary OS installation, it's more accurately describable as a complaint. Simply placing this complaint underneath the yes chad and crying wojak's doesn't really feel like a step up from a text post that says "I don't like Windows or Mac OS because you have to pay for them and they make you sign up for and agree to things". No one asked for my opinion I know, but I think this is a critique worth making: if you sum up your attempted meme in a bland, emotionally neutral sentence and then compare that bare sentence to its proposed meme counterpart and you can barely see the difference then maybe it's not a meme that has to exist. The format is flexible, but you can still use traditional written words to express complex thoughts, not everything has to be meme-ified and if it's not even funny when it is, why should it be?

Can attest, did pee in it.

The manual, entirely in Chinese and only a couple of pages long, says to connect the enclosure to the PSU and the PSU to the GPU. That's all. Although even if it were a more rigorous manual I don't know if they could really provide much guidance here. It's designed for you to use whatever PSU you want, either ATX or SFX and just hook it up.

I'm just asking because I haven't done a lot of PC building before and am not familiar with the ins and outs of types of PSU connectors. In this case, I'm unsure why the PSU manufacturer group these 2 connectors together but gave the customer the option to separate them.

Never occurred to me it was optional. I'll have to check if there's a setting for it.

ooh, that's cool. I'm assuming that's designed for American ovens then? Is that $80 USD? I was fairly convinced by @southsamurai@sh.itjust.works's explanation for why they mightn't be the best idea but would be quite happy to learn otherwise. How's it been? 3 years should be a nice long span of time to learn if it has drawbacks. Does it tend to burn the bottoms of things and undercook the tops of things as predicted? My oven is quite well actively ventilated with fans, is yours?

Yeh it looks like you need the play store version. I think they just copied their description of the app there on to f-droid or something. It seems like based on some older forum posts that you can do without play store as I've seen people talking about reverse proxies and nginx servers but I really didn't want to be going to all that trouble.

If you don't count Solitaire then I think it'd probably be Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure. I suppose technically it might have been this other game where you're a rabbit and it somehow involved spelling, but I don't remember what that was called and it was only on my friend's family's computer and it was educational so it doesn't count. It was on a floppy disk that was actually the floppy kind.

Well, it was never implied that God was supposed to be subject to the same commandments. The whole religion kind of requires holding God above one's self and others as well, as do many religions with creator gods. It doesn't really work if God is supposed to equal to us and subject to the same constraints, they're supposed by design to be omniscient and omnipotent and perfect and that's why we're supposed to trust in them and all their dictates if we want to 'saved'.

It's not a particularly remarkable insight or cutting blow to point out that God doesn't follow their own rules since everybody knows that including the devout and they think it's a good thing. I'd hazard a guess that the ability to accept this so readily probably explains a lot about overlap between strength of religious belief and embrace of dictators who also don't model their own edicts.

I have so many because I realised recently that most of my favourite foods are basically if not literally sandwiches in some form. What springs to mind now though is the English Fry-up crammed in to a baguette. I almost said the 'full-English' but admittedly it's not quite the full English.

• A crusty but still quite soft baguette is best, similar to bahn-mi bread but longer and not as chewy
• 2 fried eggs
• 2 Cumberland pork sausage (or Irish sausages if you can get them 'cos they're so good) slided in to longish strips on a bias
• Long rasher bacon strips to match the length of the baguette (can fold them if they are a bit too long)
• 2 hash browns
• Heinz baked beans (just a couple of teaspoons)
• Brown sauce
• Ketchup
• A glare from the grumpy Polish woman that made it for you.

Ok it's just a well known breakfast but shoved in a baguette but somehow it does something magical to it. Especially loved this in the UK when I had a bad hangover and I could just about drag myself to the little Polish run cafe near my place. They were great, albeit grumpy.

You're probably going to have to have a chat with your mum about this because if there's not a good specific reason for her concern, then it would be helpful to you if she could relax on this issue because it's impinging on your ability to enjoy your life as an adult. She should care about that and if she doesn't that tells you something. Ideally you could avoid the whole issue by meeting your date somewhere other than your house, although it will be awkward if you are unable to return home with them at any stage. Can your sister or any of your friends give you a ride to meet your date elsewhere?

A point of confusion I have from your post is whether you're asking about your rights to date people, or just your rights to have them pick you up from the house. As far as dating people is concerned, you say you're 25, you can do what you want neither your Mum nor your sister have any choice about it. You do not have to justify this or use your recent birthday as an excuse for anything because there's nothing to excuse. Whether you want to date people is up to you and you alone.

If your Mum specifically requested that you not bring your date to the house it would be rude to just ignore her, particularly if she has some special reason to be extra careful, but it's also a very strange request for her to make of her 25 year old adult-child so you'll definitely need her to give a pretty good explanation why you shouldn't do this. Similarly, it's a very strange situation to be in that you're worried about your sister watching camera footage of you as some kind of evidence of wrong doing, why is she in a position to do that and why would she want to? How old is she? Such behaviour is bizarre and controlling.

A lot of the details of your post sound like you've been living in strange and possibly abusive circumstances where your mother and sister are putting a lot of effort in to monitoring and controlling you, which they do not any rights to do. In most places I know of, a person is legally an "adult" at 18 years of age, how long have they been doing this to you? Were you allowed friends and relationship in school? What about afterwards at work or university?

Do you want to continue living with your mother? It might be a good idea to start gaining some more independence in your life so you can safely choose to live in a different arrangement if you want to. No offence, but the way you write does sound strangely young and naive for a 25 year old, especially the idea that you need to have either your mother or your sister around to look after you. Do you have friends that know about your living arrangements? Do you know many people outside of your house? If you tried to make friends and spend time with them, is that something your mother would try to stop you doing? It sounds like you're very isolated and your Mum is keeping it that way on purpose. Unless there's some very specific context that can explain all these details, then it sounds like there's something very wrong about how your family is treating you.

7/10 it's 'aight

They got weirdly expensive for obscure reasons. People have always shit on them for the quality of their food but I'd wager that like myself those critics have probably had their fair share of golden arches to be able to make that assesment and until recent times probably continued to do so all whilst grumbling about the quality. I'm not disputing the low quality, it has always been a product of economic efficiency and not culinary prowess, but nevertheless they have for many decades represented a kind of minimum standard that almost everyone was willing to settle for because of low prices, consistency and ubiquity. Now they have abandoned the cheap part of this triangle. I don't understand what's going on in old Ronald's bright red head these days because if you don't deliver on the cheap part of the equation then there's not much else left to recommend McDonalds. They're still consistent-ish (even that's kind of going by the wayside) but that doesn't say much when they're consistently bottom of the barrel whilst also being expensive to top it all off. Ubiquity is still a strong draw, they're kinda crappy, and overpriced but they're still here wherever that is in the world, but ultimately that only works so long as nothing else is here too since they no longer compete on price.

It's a weird strategy to have opted for having invented and perfected the streamlined factory food restaurant model that took over the world. It worked miraculously well, why would you fuck with arguably the most important part of the trifecta? Evidently it wasn't the masterplan of super smart business minds that can see well past my simple analysis because lo and behold, if you sell cheap crap and then raise the price so it becomes expensive crap, you tend to get fewer takers.

Pretty sure it's this

Did this work out badly for the company doing the interviewing? I mean it sucks that they want to underpay people but mentioning this in the manner that they did would seem to serve the exact purpose that it fulfilled, applicants who aren't desperate enough to tolerate the low pay will be filtered out. The "wait no" part of this story seems kind of strange and difficult to believe being particularly accurate because surely this is the outcome they wanted. It's nice for OP that they could walk away from insulting compensation and it probably felt good to have that empowering sense of dignity but I feel like the original post and the subsequent screen capping and re-posting of it under the title "mic drop" is intended to frame this as some sort of a victory over the man when it's actually just a mundane and expected outcome from a process designed to leave the interviewers with only the applicants that are vulnerable enough to accept pay conditions below what would be reasonable.

I think you're missing the point somewhat.

Wow, this article kinda makes me want to see it.

Somehow my tastes stagnated and ossified so I mostly only play my childhood games. That said those that stood up the most are

• Super Smash Bros Melee
• Super Mario 64
• Wave race 64
• 1080 Snowboarding
• Rise of Nations

Those 5 games have cumulatively, for better or for worse, consumed a pretty sizable chunk of my lifespan. Sounds depressing to think of it that way, but then they did such a good job of being fun that I continue to enjoy that time so you got to hand it to them, they're hella good games.

I have wondered the same thing many a time. I don't think it's naive to wonder honestly. I find it genuinely confusing, not from a moral judgy standpoint but more of an effort to reward standpoint.

If you or I sold tobacco in exchange for a quantity we'll call a "shit-tonne" for the purposes of discussion. It would change our lives considerably. As you said, you personally would do it, and I think odds are pretty good I would too. But if that 1 shit-tonne of cash doesn't significantly change the recipient's life or capabilities or long term security, I don't understand why they'd bother with it. I think my confusion diverges from yours in so far as I don't think the point of getting rich for the vast majority of people has to do with acquiring the luxury of a moral compass. It might be for some, but I'd say for most it's at best a side benefit and for many irrelevant. However I do think that most of us without the requisite shit-tonnes of cash like to imagine the purpose for acquiring it is to avoid having to expend the effort required to acquire anymore thereafter. In this framework, which seems so obvious and relatable to me, you'd think you couldn't hook wealthy actors in to shilling tobacco because basically, they just couldn't be bothered, I mean why bother? You might keep acting if you find it fun but surely there'd be funner gigs than ads?

This is a more cynical way to look at it, but no less inaccurate than your theory of acquiring wealth to buy the ability to be moral. In the case of wealthy actors however, I think they're maybe not the best example, the richest ones are very rich but their material desires are sometimes able to scale with their wealth. Nicholas Cage was a good example as he managed to get himself in to ridiculous debt ostensibly from insane spending on ridiculous things. Presumably he liked having those things and was able with some effort to actually spend enough outpace his unbelievably high earnings. In that context you might well take lucrative acting gigs for scummy companies to help you out of debt or to help you buy one more private island.

There's a whole other tier of offensive and obscene personal wealth where you see people like billionaire CEOs. These people trash my model of the 'purpose' of acquiring wealth and by the actions we see them do, yours as well. These guys probably couldn't spend all their money on material objects if they actively tried. Their motives are very obscure to me. I definitely judge these guys but I leave them just a little bit of slack in so far as it seems generally observable that acquiring this much wealth seems to make you want to keep acquiring more wealth. I may not know why, but it almost seems like some kind of a fundamental law or drive so it could almost have some exculpatory power, though not much and in any case would only lend credence to the idea that society as a whole ought to avoid the accumulation of quite so much personao wealth since if my observation is at all accurate it would tend to mean, that much like we hold it to be true that all drivers will be impaired after a certain amount of alcohol so too does wealth tend to corrupt the decision making and motivations of people who have too much of it.

I've read about the topic a little bit and there's some concepts that make some sense. People do crave purpose, so if you make enough money to sit on your ass and avoid having to make money people have a tendency to create objectives for themselves to work towards and if they don't it can lead to unhappiness. In the case of some of those who achieved such wealth they had such objectives on the way up too, so it's how they've always lived their life (theoretically, if they supposedly got their through hard work and merit, big if). This does explain it I guess, but as an explanation it feels vague and weak. I've heard ideas around a kind of competitive peer pressure effect too, these guys want to be richer than each other. This is unsatisfying because it's just so dumb but makes a lot of sense, especially because it kind of scales with wealth as well. Often as people at all walks of life take stock of their position they will assess how well they're doing in comparison to where they were before and also in comparison to someone else around them so by those metrics you're always going to want to be doing just that little bit better than a few years ago and your always going to want to be exceeding or approaching the person you've most recently set as a desirable standard. All of these ideas seem to explain the behaviour we see but to me all feel too wishy washy to really make sense but I guess that's because it's going to be lots of these drives acting in concert along with something that one probably just has to experience and which basically none of us ever will as it comes with becoming richer than god.

Personally I can't but think that if instead of becoming rich, I suddenly got bequeathed all of Elon Musk's wealth unexpectedly from his timely death then I'd very likely have far less ambitious and contentious goals than he. Not necessarily because I hold myself to a higher standard but because, I mean, why take over the world like a megalomaniac when it's so much easier and more fun to do lots of drugs and go traveling and play with all the best toys? If I really crave purpose I can make a movie or something, I wouldn't even have to be good at it, I could buy everything related to it being made and distributed. If I was talentless and it stunk and flopped, it wouldn't be my problem and I could afford to spend my time getting good at it as a hobby even if each flop cost hundreds of millions. But maybe one the zeros started trailing on my account balance I'd suddenly start wanting to own everything and influence politics and just generally being a bit of a prick, it seems to happen to people.

This is a tough one, I'm going to guess Marx?

I've read that masks do not actually thwart these systems.