The death of the dollar is eminent

Moscow Stock exchange halts trading in US dollars.

Russian warships and nuclear subs are right off the coast of Florida and Harvard in Cuba. This makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a tea party.

Interesting on the timing of this, as it…

— Ann Vandersteel (@annvandersteel) June 13, 2024

Petroguzzlers I don't feel so good:

Aliens be appearing:

Russia is groping America's gock:

Putler coming for those f16bussies:

!schizomaxxxers speculate wildly.

!boozers

In response to constant bitching from jannies (unpaid) that new users aren't asking good questions, Stack Overflow have added a new feature called the Staging Ground:

Basically new users aren't even allowed to ask questions directly onto the site anymore and their questions are instead pushed into a separate pipeline where no one can give them answers and their questions are instead disseminated by powerusers. Only if a question passes this multi-stage process does it actually make it onto SO proper. Spoiler: nothing ever passes.

Let's look at what this new user experience looks like...

A new user asks a Python question (now deleted so no link). It's correctly formatted, it explains the question clearly and shows the error. This sounds like a good question, right? WRONG.

They're asked to edit the question (which they do), and then they're told to edit it again. The question is then closed as being "off topic" (it's a Python coding question lol) and to rub salt into the wounds a poweruser asks the Meta (aka poweruser sneed) forum how to punish them further in How should we respond in the Staging Ground when OP ignores feedback, makes a trivial edit and submits for re-evaluation?.

The response? Ask for more changes:

This is exactly what declined re-eval was added for. To elaborate more: we added this feature for this exact scenario, and it is designed to give the reviewer a frictionless way to both tell the author that they still need to address the original feedback (IIRC, banner tells them this). And if the author continues to ignore it, they will be temporarily blocked, with clear explanations why

Of course OP can't actually do this because their question has been closed as off topic.

Congrats Stack Overflow, you're going to die even faster.

Trump just posted his 2nd TikTok — with Logan Paul

I’ve never seen him this happy before pic.twitter.com/zMQQACPfIv

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) June 12, 2024

MEME MAGIC:

57,8% - Definitely yes

27,9% - Rather yes

9,2% - Rather no

1,5% - Definitely no

3,6% - I don't know

The context here is that Lukashenko has been deliberately sending waves of migrants to the borders of Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, using it as a weapon to destabilize these countries.

The context here is polish soldier died at the border

There are a handful of people that keep repeating this " Context here" line. How anyone can think a soldier being stabbed justifies gunning down unarmed civilians is just beyond me. What I think is that those who voted yes likely would have voted yes regardless of this context.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this kind of thing wouldn't be a propaganda win for Putin?

"Well the guy who stabbed that Polish soldier was armed!" Oh well in that case let's not take any fricking chances shall we?

are people not understanding what fricking ARMED means? You aren't making the distinction. You just want an excuse to kill them all. At least be fricking honest about it. I'm turning off replies I can't listen to this absolute horseshit.

Least you can do is be honest. You want to shoot them all. Stop pretending otherwise ffs. One sdier got stabbed and in your mind they are all a potential threat and now they can be shot. You WANT an excuse. This gives you one. Just be fricking honest.

Because that context isn't actually context. The debate itself in Poland is in regards to peace time law and weapon usage by the army.

Right now, unless someone tries to drive over the border or has a gun, soldiers and border guards can't use weapons. The law permits it only when belligerent has dangerous object, so if your enemy is a spear man like in this case, you can't shoot it they are out of slashing range, and if they throw it, well now they don't have dangerous object.

So you are in a situation where guards and soldiers have to cope with getting stoned, speared, shit jared and sometimes attempted to be charged with knifes, but can't do much else than spray some gas and hope this time they won't get hurt.

It's not hard to find videos of how it looks on that border, you should probably see it for yourself.

Is this really the case? In any country I would assume if you run towards a soldier or police officer with a knife in your hand the probablity you are shot at least in the leg is pretty darn high. Even civilians would be allowed to shoot in self defense. It also does not really matter if this happens on the border or inside the country and by whom. This is at least the case in Germany.

If this is not the case in Poland than change it, but it does not have anything to do with migrants or unarmed civilians.

this is cuckrope you're talking about

How is this controversial? A country has a right to defend it's borders with any means it deems necessary. Not being able to say this without being branded a nazi is what causes populists and nationals to win

If the Royal Navy started sinking the boats that the French send to England then it would mean we've lost our core values and been taken over by far right violent thugs. Looks like Europe is being taken over by the same types it was last century.

but making them live in bongland is worse than killing them

For all their scoffs at nazis, this thread and comments like "shoot to kill" "mine the border" (anti-personnel mines against civilians?) and people advocating for detainment and then deporting instead of killing hundreds of civilians being downvoted, shows how a lot Europeans disagree with the optics and aesthetics of Nazis, but fully agree with their politics.

Even fricking Trump had no mass-killings perpetrated.

you're worse than heckin trump

What exactly is the point of having an army, if you were to allow yourself to be successfully invaded by crowds of unarmed vagrants?

no one calls you racist if you let them through and everyone knows that is the most important thing in the world

This ad in honor of World Down Syndrome Day : Darnthatsinteresting

A lot of the comment threads are basically one person incredibly milquetoastly defending the idea that learning disabilities are an actual, real thing that exist, and then another person replying "Actually, if you look at the 99.9th percentile most intelligent people with Down's syndome and extrapolate to the whole population, you'll see that they're actually able to succesfully live on their own entirely off of social welfare with ownly twice daily visits from their carers! This also means you should allowed to have s*x with them, HITLER"

"Assume I can have s*x so I will" seems like a dangerous message to generalize

What danger do you perceive there, within or without the context of this ad?

[Words words words about how you can't frick people with a mental age of 8]

This argument kind of loses traction when most people who would make it, would also turn their nose up at anyone who has s*x with a girl whose boobs and/or butt are too small, or who's too skinny.

You can't say the mental age is what matters, and then turn around and say "No no, physical appearance is what matters!".

Idk what the frick this last dude's talking about, I think he's had one too many arguments defending 8000 year old dragons and his gut insticts kicked in lol

I hate this ad so much 😭 Just because a small part of the Down Syndrome Community can do these things does not mean you can assume that everyone can. [Words words words]

You missed the point big time....which is to not assume at all and instead treat humans as individuals regardless of the assumptions that can be made based their disability. But great speech!

Bayes' theorem DEBUNKED by GENIUS Redditor. If you think about it, not giving driver's licenses to children is also judging people based on assumptions, so why not reduce the legal driving age to 0? Sure, a few twelve year olds might get wrapped trees, but that's a small price to pay to reduce the stigma we're currently putting on children. Because that's what matters: the stigma. The biggest problem people with Down's syndrome have isn't that they can't function independently in any capacity, it's the stigma they get from not being able to function independently.

I don't understand this ad because not everyone with down syndrome has the same cognitive or physical abilities. If someone is being discriminatory based on someone having down sydnrome, then obviously that's bad, but being respectfully cautious with your judgements about how much someone with down syndrome might be able to drink, or how hard they might be able to hit, don't seem like the horrible travesties that this ad make them out to be.

The message of the ad is to let the person fail. Don't prevent people with Down Syndrome from doing things because you don't think they'll succeed.

I mean, these are very dangerous things. The assumption that someone can drive, or drink, or live on their own, or have s*x, when the average person with their disorder has the mental capacity of a child in first grade is immensely dangerous.

Imagine letting a 10 year old live on their own. How long do you think it'll be before the house burns down? Extend that to 14 and it's still the same answer. These assumptions are not without consequences

You teach people to drive, you give them s*x education, etc. Nobody's saying just throw a person with Downs into the deep end. The point is presuming they can't learn or understand is the problem.

Lmao imagine giving a 16 yr old the keys to your car and saying "good luck!" That's what you're pretending this video is saying.

Yeah, obviously the main reason not many people with Down's syndrome know how to drive is there's just no one to teach them lmao

So are we normalizing having s*x with people with Down syndrome now? Wild.

Yes because depending on their disability, they can consent. Not that wild.

All of this r-slur-molesting nonsense is underpinned by a sort of implicit Cartesian dualism and the belief that there's some ephemereal perfectly rational "self" that exists inside of everyone. This means that with the correct intervention--in this case, letting them do whatever they want all the time--people with severe learning disabilities could become just as smart and rational as Redditors. This is contradictory to all modern science, undermines the logic of offering any sort of accommodation to disabled people, and is only morally necessary in the first place if you make an a priori assumption that intelligence is necessary for a person to have individual worth, but is otherwise socially convenient, so it's mindlessly accepted even if the argument also explicitly promotes molesting people with learning disabilites

https://twitter.com/stone_toss/status/1801253193080361016

I think US presidents should be held to a slightly different standard than US citizens !nonchuds

#BREAKING

Shocking & Incriminating details emerge against actors Darshan & Pavitra Gowda in the Murder case

Police sources claim #Darshan & aides allegedly assaulted #Renukaswamy repeatedly inside a shed next to Pavitra's residence. #Pavitra was also allegedly present with… pic.twitter.com/JtDNFOD9DK

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) June 12, 2024

This man who was the actor's fan sent his peepee pics to his gf saying he was confident he was better than the actor in that one aspect at least and she shouldn't bother their family Incidentally his own wife was three months pregnant

https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/movies/renuka-swamys-pregnant-wife-demands-justice-for-late-husband-says-whether-he-is-an-actor-or-a-star-i-want-justice-article-12746892.html

SHOW MORE

TL;DR - carefully watch what he does when he says no, and then punish him for it until he loses the ability to ever refuse you.

This technique is also effective on human moids.

There's absolutely no drama here but it's not like anyone else is posting at this time in the morning.

The thread on /r/roosterteeth is "What products or services that RT sponsored did you use? What did you like and dislike?".

One of the threads is about mail-order underwear service MeUndies:

Me Undies. They're great, but the fabric doesn't hold up more than a couple years before they start developing holes if you wear them regularly. Mediocre product for a mediocre price. [+12]

[Me] I don't think underwear is meant to last for that long. [-2]

You don't see a problem with that?

**[Me]**A couple of years of regular usage? No, buy some new underpants.

Imagine owning underwear that you wear regularly for two years