oilchange

6 ms·

1.
by oilchange 3y ago
People usually keep their phone near them. Even when they sleep. So if you know where the phone is via tracking, then you know where the owner of the phone is. And ultimately where the owner of the phone sleeps.
2.
by oilchange 3y ago
> The boy offers to give the man his pistol but the man tells him to keep it. That indicates the man is not trying to trick him. Yes and the nice cannibal they killed offered to give them food and shelter. Remember how nice that canniba
3.
by oilchange 3y ago
> One moment I was perfectly awake, and the next moment I was hearing the sounds of people talking around me and I groggily became aware of my doctor getting me to acknowledge him. Yep. I remember the nurse telling me to count backwards
4.
by oilchange 3y ago
> My problem with your reasoning is that it relies on a literal interpretation of the words spoken in the book. What? Now you are just desperately grasping at straws. > The father says that "there are no other kids his age",
5.
by oilchange 3y ago
>It is not. I think it is. I gave my reasons in another comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326924 > If he was one of the cannibals, he could have just shot him and got it over with In the book, the cannib
6.
by oilchange 3y ago
> From what I recall, it's not stated that the family who takes in the boy are cannibals. It isn't explicitly stated, but it is heavily implied. I gave my reasons to another comment. https://news.ycombinator.com&#x2F
7.
by oilchange 3y ago
> It felt to me that the family that takes in the boy are not bad people. What family? You really believe the man and woman who took in the boy had a "family"? A world where boy's own mother abandoned him and his father to
8.
by oilchange 3y ago
> It's true this is done for literary effect, but it does make it harder to read. What literary effect? I didn't even notice there were punctuation issues until I read the guy's comment. Maybe since it was basically a book
9.
by oilchange 3y ago
> I have read the book, and it is about sticking to your morals no matter how evil the world will become. What morals? They stole other peoples stuff. They abandoned the poor people in the basement to die at the hands of the cannibals. T
10.
by oilchange 3y ago
I'm sure if it mattered you would have pointed out the difference.
11.
by oilchange 3y ago
> I obviously can't argue further as I haven't read it. You should. It's the best of its kind in my opinion. > I will remark that different people will react to the same material variously uplifted or beaten-down, and n
12.
by oilchange 3y ago
> But the love between the father and his son persists to the very end. So what? Of course the love between a father and son persists. It's only natural. But that's not the point of the book. The book is about finding hope. The
13.
by oilchange 3y ago
> It was, I'm told, a very good book that I noped out of about ten pages in. That's strange. The book grabs your attention from the get go. It starts strong. Stays strong. Ends strong. > I made it that far before becoming in
14.
by oilchange 3y ago
> I haven't read it myself, but I've seen many report that it was uplifting to them. Uplifting? There was nothing uplifting about The Road. It's a world without hope. From the description of the forests, seas, societies an
15.
by oilchange 3y ago
> Second, get off your drugs. SSRIs and benzos and other psychotropic medications have serious side effects that will cause you to have suicidal and homicidal ideations. But aren't therapists the one peddling these drugs to their pa
16.
by oilchange 3y ago
> and like all blowups on Reddit, this one will pass as well. Exactly. Reddit holds all the cards. Time after time, no great migration after a "revolt". > Even r/nba committed to an indefinite timeframe at arguably the
17.
by oilchange 3y ago
> In the end I'd say the US's broken legislative system has forced the fed to make some really tough decisions. But don't the fed and congress serve the same master? Congress is 'broken' for a reason. > The bo
18.
by oilchange 3y ago
> Russia is waging a war of conquest So then the liberal democracies were against the US when we invaded iraq? Are they against the occupation of germany, japan, korea, italy, etc? Or is it not conquest when we do it? > China has conc
19.
by oilchange 3y ago
The truth hurts. An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it. Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Im
20.
by oilchange 3y ago
And horror stories like berenice by the great edgar allan poe.
21.
by oilchange 3y ago
> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd. What is the "liberal democracies&
22.
by oilchange 3y ago
> Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Where did I hear this talking point before? Oh that's right. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. https://youtu.be/q_hGKT5FI78?t=52
23.
by oilchange 3y ago
It's more likely a negotiating tactic. It happens all the time. Also, I wouldn't take any article that begins "Last week, when Elon Musk hosted conspiracy theory nonsense peddler RFK Jr. on a Twitter Spaces..." seriously
24.
by oilchange 3y ago
Media propaganda talking points checklist. 1. Iran. Check. 2. Russia. Check. 3. China. Check. 4. Mexican drug cartel. Check. You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "C
25.
by oilchange 3y ago
> I'd love someone in one of the "strategy" arms in one of these funds to explain what they think the end result of this is at it's extent? You buy homes in a region if you think the population will rise, interest rat
26.
by oilchange 3y ago
> You're exactly right. You already know. So do you. But you've got an agenda and a worldview that prevents you from accepting it. Imagine being naive enough to believe that there isn't chemical nor biological weapons in t
27.
by oilchange 3y ago
> because it's not there anymore It hasn't been there for many many years. I loved how open and free it was. Everyone really had a place there and you could read and interact with every idea, viewpoint, etc. Then as it got popu
28.
by oilchange 3y ago
> Except for all of the hate, vitriol, prejudice, and disregard for the basic humanity of others, it's egalitarian and accessible?? What's more egalitarian and accessible than allowing all "hate", "vitriol",
29.
by oilchange 3y ago
> This is partly why I now prefer the term "free exchange of ideas" over "freedom of speech". What do you need in order to have a free exchange of ideas? Oh that's right, free speech. Free exchange of ideas is on
30.
by oilchange 3y ago
> Very clearly false dilemma. No. It's game theory. It's geopolitics. It's why russia, britain, france and china developed nukes. It's why india and pakistan developed it. > That's a strong word for what you w

More ›