B

One of my favourite things about super was to see the original Goku character come back. A goofy and loveable guy that's a savant when it comes to fighting and just wants a bigger challenge.

Hercule. Not only is he fucking hilarious but without him the fights against Cell and Buu would have been lost.

In the Cell games he showed incredible bravery to throw 16's head over to Gohan, enabling Gohan to hear the words he needed to go super sayin 2.

In the Buu saga, he befriended a monster, he showed kindness and compassion that was nearly able to end the fight before it even started. This later caused the good and evil buu's to split. Without Hercule, Goku would not have been able to power up the spirit bomb that finishes Kid Buu.

True, but that's not the point. It'd clearly be unrealistic to equate the crime to things like rape or murder.

The man's obviously sick in the head but at least didn't attack a child irl.

Nice. Congratulations to the junior doctors, well deserved.

It's my understanding that it's actually a pretty typical sentence. He's obviously sick in the head but has been judged as little risk to children.

To be fair, some phones already have that but they have much lower spec cameras/lenses, so it's currently a trade off.

If a flag ship phone were to find away to implement a flush top spec camera, it would still only be an incremental improvement rather than a great new technology or a substantial innovation.

Yh, I'm not for bailing out companies that are "too big to fail", I see it as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, but that's a separate debate.

Tech stocks were a interesting case as they bloated far beyond their actual value during COVID, what happened in 2023 was probably somewhat of a renormalization and now they're back to business as usual. There will always be peaks and valleys, but I'd be very surprised to see tech stocks fail in the long term.

I'm not going to argue that there has been no progress, just that it's not on the same scale.

Look at the difference between phones from 2004 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2024 and surely you'd have to agree. We're looking at huge leaps in tech and innovation Vs much smaller incremental improvements.

And I'd once again like to state that this is not a complaint, just a point of view showing that astonishing amounts of technological innovation are not necessarily required to keep companies in business.

On the contrary, I absolutely appreciate it. I was about 15 when mobile phones first became a thing that everyone owned, so I've lived through the entire progression from when they were something only a well to do businessman would have all the way through to today. The first iPhone was 2007, 17 years ago btw.

When mobile phones became popular, each new generation of phones saw HUGE improvements and innovation. However, the last ten years has pretty much just been slight improvements to screen/camera/memory/CPU. Form wise and functionally, they're very similar to the phone of ten years ago.

I understand that some technophiles will always be able to justify why the new iPhone is worth £1600 and if that's what they want to spend their money on then good for them, but I personally think that they are kidding themselves. Today you can get a brilliant phone for £300 or even less.

In more recent news;

BBC News - Samsung profits jump by more than 900% on chips https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68738046

I agree. Smartphones, for example, have hardly changed at all over the last ten years, but you don't see Apple and Samsung going out of business.

I remember when running counter strike at 30fps on a 480p monitor meant you had a good computer.

Modern graphics are amazing, but they're simply not required to have a good gaming experience.

T

A fancy word for scribblings apparently.

This is the real life hack.

Wear marigolds, this also enables you to have the water be much hotter which makes the job easier.

I'd ask how much your parents helped you.

Murder implies intent. If the assailant, knowing they had COVID, purposefully coughed in to the face of the victim with the intent of infecting them, then you have a point. But the article does not imply that is what happened.

The hostages were hamas

Ok. I was referring to the commonly known and understood "right of way" in regards to road traffic, I thought that was obvious but perhaps I could have made it clearer, but thanks for letting me know of the term in regards to access to land and public rights of way.

You can be as bitter about it as you like but it absolutely is required. You could come up the most obvious sarcasm you could ever imagine, and I'll find you people that believe you're being sincere.

We live in the post satire era.

I'm not sure how your idea for a sarcasm tag is any different to /s, it seems to be a roundabout way to achieve the exact same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

There's actually no legal definition for "right of way" in the UK. Despite it being a widely understood concept, if you go to court to defend yourself in a road traffic accident and your defence is "it was my right of way, your honour", you could find yourself in trouble.

The most infuriating are the wannabe policeman that straddle both lanes to stop people passing.

Like, if you wanna sit in a queue for no reason then good for you, don't stop people passing that have actually bothered to read the highway code.

Drivers that want to queue in single file when you should use all available lanes and then merge in turn at the front.

REEEEEEEEEE!!!

Edit: I really want to know the thoughts of the people that downvoted this lol

Thank you and good riddance to @beaver@lemmy.ca, when you look at the amount of subs she is modding, it's quite worrying. It makes me wonder if she does anything else with her time.

It's not about banning fun, it's about trying to control the narrative that the grass isn't greener.

We're talking about u/beaver aren't we?

One of the things I disliked about Reddit was the self righteous power mods that turned the site in to an echo chamber.

If you can't handle a counter point that's been made in good faith, then get off of the soapbox.

You are now banned from c/vegan

You are now banned from c/vegan

Yh, not like it's her job to parent the child, that's the government's responsibility!

No, I want to argue the point that you think it's a job worth creating, but that I also get the impression that it's a job you wouldn't want to be doing yourself.

But I also get the impression that engaging you in debate is going to be a waste of my time.

That's so sad. Hopefully we can learn from the loss and future wild cats may benefit.

If we did, we would do something about it."

Like build conveniently placed cart returns with "please return your cart" written on them?

I'm not asking if you return your cart, I'm asking if you're employed to return the carts of other people.

I also have an emergency that I need to get to NOW!

If they're so tired after walking around the shop and walking back to their car that they can't do that tiny bit more and return the cart to the corral, maybe they should be seeing a doctor to see if they are eligible for disability (sounds like a severe case of lazybonesitis) and use a handicapped spot. Or you know, stop being so fucking lazy and making excuses.

If you piss on the toilet seat, do you clean it up (free labour as you call it) or hire a cleaner?

Are you a trolley returning person on minimum wage, or are you just saying it's a good job for someone else?

Imagine living in a country where some people have egos so fragile that they threaten to kill you because you told them they are lazy.