This sounds like you were going to segue to today's sponsor, Ground News.

Why would having fans means it doesn't work? I use fans along with AC to make the cold air distribution faster, doesn't mean my AC is not working.

There's difficulty, then there's balancing issue. We expect difficulty, but not invalidating certain builds entirely.

It's not. You don't have to play the K-Pop USB sticks, but you sure as hell can't avoid smelling the shit NK drops on your house.

The answer to your second question is that 'he' was historically used as generic pronouns, though it's not as acceptable nowadays.

Only NFTs died, so I guess part of crypto did.

Thanks to recessive genes, it's definitely possible for two paint brushes to birth another form of brush.

So teams don't use intermediates to avoid using up their soft tyre allocation. They should add some wiggle ground as the FIA can be slow at announcing things, but ultimately this is all on Ferrari.

There are lots of comments on that thread trying to divert the issue by pointing out the violence done by the western countries. I would assume his comment was in response to one of these comments, so he wouldn't be the one to bring up the West into the discussion.

It seems the top one is from a Filipino movie called "My Ex and Whys".

That tweet doesn't mention the word disgusting at all.

And AMD is following along with the stupid naming scheme in the next generation.

He's only offering a reason, not necessarily that he supports the reason. Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can't even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?

A suggestion of a benefit to open-carrying does not equal endorsement, nor does it mean opposing the view that open-carrying can be dangerous. Try to be more open-minded.

If we all didn't recommend Chrome, we would still be using IE now, probably.

I see… so this would be a person who is so extremely stupid that they would attack someone with a stun gun on their belt, but not a regular gun.

You seriously still can't comprehend why someone would more likely attack someone with a less than lethal weapon than someone with a lethal weapon?

That doesn’t sound especially plausible.

Can you explain why?

And, again, I never said they were a deterrent, you did.

You said a stun gun is a deterrent. You also claimed they are the same level of deterrent as a gun.

I never made a claim that they were a deterrent. I was merely responding to your claim that they were.

And that's where the communication breaks down, I think. My point is not that guns are an effective deterrent, but I was explaining that from the perspective of the queers that live among bigots, they would only open-carry if they think that doing so would reduce the risk of being attacked. You then provided an alternative method of carrying a stun gun. Is it wrong to assume that you were claiming stun guns are an effective deterrent, then?

But is the Kangoo in the same price category as the EVs that spy on us? Is it even released at a time when major corporations spying on everyone is so normalized like it is today? I think both of these being no would explain why that car is so nice, simple, and reliable.

I already did answer, you were just to stubborn to see it. I said I cannot really answer, since I don't have an understanding on how bigot's mind works, and my claim was simply that a stun gun is less of a deterrent than an actual gun.

You said a gun on their belt was a deterrence. My question was based on that.

Your admittance that you can’t answer my question shows that the answer is that if it is a deterrent, so is a stun gun.

And I already countered that by pointing out that the difference in level of lethality between the two means the amount of risk a bigot would have to face in order to attack a queer is different, therefore they do not have the same level of deterrence.

I have also not denied when you claimed that a gun is not a complete deterrence, so why would repeatedly asking me why a stun gun would not completely deter a bigot make any sense in this context? I was using the same logic as you did when you said a gun doesn't completely deter attackers.

On the other hand, it was you who claimed that both of these things have the same level of deterrence and refusing to answer my question of why that would be. Why don't you finally answer that question and stop derailing the conversation.

And you're avoiding answering the exact same question for why you claim they would still attack a queer open-carrying a gun.

I cannot really answer specifically since I have no idea how the bigots think, but my logic is based on the logic you presented first, which is that open-carrying a gun won't stop a bigot from attacking a queer person. Now you're trying to completely ignore the fact that you presented the logic first, and repeatedly ignoring my attempt at pointing it out.

Why are you trying to be so disingenuous when we were having a pretty civil discussion before?

Why don't you finally answer this question. If you believed, as you claim before, that a queer open-carrying a gun still runs risk of being attacked by bigots, why would you also believe that open carrying a stun gun would deter them?

Maybe you should answer the question, then, since you claim the bigots would just attack a queer open-carrying a gun from the back. You even claim they would rather shoot them instead of backing off if they open carry. What reason are these claims are based on, then?

Also, why are you avoiding answering my question, then? Is the logical inconsistency in your own argument prevents you from providing an answer?

Hard to argue with them not wanting to support a browser that only makes up 3.3% of browsers used worldwide. Actually, it's probably not even their decision, but the decision of some higher ups that want to save development or software cost.

You might try convincing them by polling how many people in your company wants to use Firefox, though. There could be a significant enough proportion of you guys that do.