>>20297
>I've said absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm saying the opposite and you're disagreeing with me. There are two types of people; those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and people like you.

>>20298
>those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and people like you.

You seem to be neither - accusing someone of reading X opinion on Y website invites the suspicion that you yourself found that opinion, and choose the strange action of wiping your snot on someone else's sleeve.

Perhaps if he gets really fucked up he'll end up engaging in pointless bickering on Britain's number three imageboard for she'd enthusiasts.

>>20304
Cool ad hominem bro you still haven't given any evidence to the contrary.

>>20304
That’s a grammatical pun, you pleb.

>>20240

Costco if you meet the requirements, JTF if you don't.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/appeal-witnesses-after-petrol-station-16939719

>Appeal for witnesses after petrol station is robbed by a man claiming to have a knife



Only in Britain.

- "I've got a knife but I'm not going to show it to you. Give me all your money!!"

- "Erm, ok, take everything you want"

>>20300

Would you expect someone working in a petrol station to take any sort of risk like that? I wouldn't protect a companies till even for a punch in the face.

>>20301

Company policy is invariably to just hand over the money. The compo payout for an employee or customer who was wounded or killed in a robbery would be vastly greater than the value of the cash in the till, so it's just not worth arguing even if the threat doesn't seem remotely credible.

>>20301

Still nothing wrong with backing up your claim by showing the knife. You're already in for armed robbery anyway, regardless of whether or not you actually have a knife. I think there have been court cases where somebody got done for armed robbery just for poking his index finger through his coat pocket and saying he had a gun.

So why not present your weapon to the poor lad you're robbing so he'll at least know you're not a pretentious cunt.

And besides, why say you've got a knife. If you're bullshitting anyway, why not say you've got a gun in your coat pocket. Would convince me more than the prospect of getting grazed by an imaginary knife across the counter.

>>20226
> We have some sort of IT system for midwives called Badgernet.
Prolly a reference to an old joke about a pregnancy test.

>>20226
BadgerNet is software named and written by a private sector company.

>>20224
>The goal is that they never happen.
Unlike all those other, lesser mistakes that they are perfectly OK to let happen?

>>20243
Let's hope they don't make a mistake while removing that stick from your arse, eh lad?

>>20243

How do you still not understand this?

Have you not ever had a job with a company big enough to have HR and safety reporting?

>>20216

I've heard some bizarre anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in my time, but the idea that the Jews have been plotting to replace a cartoon Welsh carpet-bagger with a boggle-eyed fire extinguisher takes the cake.

Next time don't wait a whole day for me to bait the motherfucker out.

>>20218

It's almost as if that was the point.

>>20219

Well, sorry, but you got the wrong guy. Don't pat yourself on the back so soon.

I fully expected a ban for a post like that, but steady on modlads. Can't you tell blatant facetiousness any more?

>>20221
1) A "permanent" ban is the easiest thing to click thanks to the mod UI, I asked about changing this a few times over the years but nothing came of it.
2) You got around it in minutes so who cares?

>>20222

>A "permanent" ban is the easiest thing to click thanks to the mod UI

That feels intentional.

>>20128
They weren't allowed.

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/why-iran-supertanker-took-a-much-longer-route-to-reach-syria-/30038586.html

The US are blaming Iran for the attacks on the Saudi oil fields. Here we go again.

>>20194
Ha. Just waiting for the folks responsible for 9/11 to tell us who to bomb. The world's weird.

>>20194
>waiting on the Kingdom as to... what terms we would procede
He just copped to letting the House of fucking Saud set his military and diplomatic stance, incredible.

>>20203
It's just good customer service.

>>20172
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/contents

>>20166

So if a bird sodomises someone with a strap-on, it's not rape? If a bloke bum fucks you, it's not rape?

Blimey, you learn something new every day. I think we need a hashtag to sort this injustice out.

>>20174
Reading comprehension not your strong point, is it?

>>20174

>Blimey, you learn something new every day


With the exception of the lads who make all those bold claims in the first place.

>>20175

It should be noted that my post was intended to express shock and surprise, not disagreement or smart-arsery.

>>20176

Not sure what claims you're on about.

>>19081

This plays into US politics they have a hard on for the preservation and promotion of Christian culture and values above and beyond the normal historical value that this gives them a chance to exercise. It is an easy win for him.

>>19090
I think otherlad meant Macron rather than Trump when he said President Frog.

>>19091

Ah the president OF the frogs, not the president of the frog meme. Gotcha

>>19092
You might want to think about taking the night off.

I assume this is the same shop. It's nice how they've allowed a greater deal of light and focus onto the remaining Notre Dame. The plain white seems a little too much though - perhaps theywanted not to detract from the Cathedral but it just looks out of place.

>>20025
It wasn't the Kindle edition she was pictured reading.

Obvious fake is fake.

>>20053

Twelve year olds, lad.

>>20072
Could you fuck off with this cropped-screenshot-bollocks, if you want to have a conversation about Epstein fucking start one, you thick shit. Don't just post random snippets of shite like this was your typo-strewn Facebook feed, you massive, useless, dickhead.

No one sucks the life out of conspiracy theories like fucking conspiracy theorists.

>>20073

>No one sucks the life out of conspiracy theories like fucking conspiracy theorists.

That's what THEY want you to think.

>>20064

>I remember a few years ago seeing a person just walking around a bar offering a low quality free shot to anyone who gave them their email address as a promotion, and people just fill that shit in without thinking, coz free shot!


Back in the old days when cigarette marketing wasn't quite the leper of the advertising world yet that it is now, I remember I was at a bar with a few mates one night and two lasses in Lucky Strike branded outfits came in and offered each of us a free ten pack (do those still exist? ) of Lucky Strikes if we agreed to give them our address details, it was something about the possibility of winning big prizes or something. Naturally all of us did, none of us won any prizes, but I distinctly remember an increase in spam mail (the paper kind) in the following weeks. I wasn't normally that free about givin away my address, so the bastards must have sold it to spammers. And probably got more for my data than it cost them to produce a ten pack of Lucky Strikes.

>>20064
> I remember a few years ago seeing a person just walking around a bar offering a low quality free shot to anyone who gave them their email address as a promotion, and people just fill that shit in without thinking, coz free shot!

What if they were giving him fake email addresses?

>>20064

Back in the day, whenever you went to any sort of political meeting or rally, there was always someone enthusiastically collecting signatures for some or other petition. Romanian orphans, Nicaraguan political prisoners, animal cruelty in Spain, you name it, there was always something new to petition against.

You can see where this is going. It turned out that most of those enthusiastic young men were undercover rozzers of some description; those petitions were basically their way of taking the register.

>>20056
The most devilish thing about the current generation of mass surveillance is that the intrusion is pretty intangible until it's too late.
It's hard to justify the need for protection when the harm isn't being felt.

>>20067
>What if they were giving him fake email addresses?

Her, you always send a disarming naive looking girl to do your most devious work.

>fake email addresses?

I assume some of them were. But enough of them probably weren't to be worth their time. It think there was also some token competition that they wanted to contact people to let them know they won which is enough for people to give away their details.

How do I skip this shit bit and get back on in the post-scarcity era?

>>19682
I think the devs made this cutscene unskippable.

>>19683
Time to uninstall.

Told you.

>>19680
>doomsday

The world's richest countries temporarily defied their trend of always growing increasingly richer? That's your idea of doomsday?

>>19893

One litre is always defined as 1000 cc, regardless of units of weight measurement. Water having a density of approximately 1 is just a coincidence.

Also, it's more a rule of thumb that water's density is 1. It's accurate enough for most calculations by and large, but the real figure for water at standard atmospheric conditions is closer to around 0.997 g/cc. And the litre as a unit of volume was not derived from the volume of 1 kg of water, but from the metre's definition of being the precise distance that a beam of light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second (originally it was assumed to be one ten-millionth the distance from the Equator to the North Pole).

It gets slightly more complicated when you also factor in that water's density on Earth is only what it is because of the specific mix of protium and deuterium hydrogen atoms contained in it. It might be different on other planets where the protium-deuterium relation in the local water is different. Deuterium-enriched water here on Earth is known as heavy water, with a density of around 1.107 g/cc, and it's what is used in some reactor designs of nuclear power stations.

>>19895 Isn't water literally the basis for the metric system? It's not coincidence at all.

>>19895
>Water having a density of approximately 1 is just a coincidence.
No, it was by definition. The small difference is a combination of better control of standard conditions and the drift in the IPK.

>>19926

The original definition was based on the volume of a kilogram of water, but the current definition is fixed at 1000 cm^3 and has no relation to water.

>>19929
Yes. You see that "was" in the past tense, right? You know what that means, yeah?

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

>>19832
>The problem with them is that they're on record.
No, they're not. Public announcements of death sentences and executions are the exception rather than the norm. The exact numbers are considered to be state secrets. Throw in tight controls on information, and the fact that the executions themselves are carried out behind closed doors, and it would be easy to force someone into medical experimentation without anyone knowing. As far as family or fellow inmates are concerned, they were taken away and executed, and their remains disposed of.

>>19834

China is the only developed country on earth with no waiting list for organ transplants.

>>19831
The ones in China aren't been kept alive long enough to grow organs. In Japan they're going to try and grow mice-human organs.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02275-3

>>19835
Golly, I suppose those folks in Old Cathay are just so civic minded they don't mind handing them over once they're gone.

>>19764
Tut, lazy sod.

>>19761
The best way to get banned from r/communism is to ask them why the gay rights movement flourished in capitalist countries instead of communist countries.

>>19818
I'm guessing it has something to do with the apparatus of communism having little motivation to be progressive so it will generally be quite conservative in practice whereas capitalism co-opts any sort of social movement that it can use to sell things.

>>19820
>capitalism co-opts any sort of social movement that it can use to sell things
Took the words out of my mouth.

>>19821

There was a new current in advertising about ten or fifteen years ago where pretty mainstream British companies ran ads specifically directed towards the GLBTQ community for their products, which were then placed in gay and lesbian lifestyle magazines. The move was widely welcomed, but we should have no illusions about companies' progressiveness. They spotted an opportunity to gain the appreciation of a particular subset of their target audience, and they went for it.

Similarly, nowadays when companies recruit staff and it says in the ad "m/f/d", it doesn't necessarily mean that that company is falling over itself welcoming gender diversity, just that the newest fad in staff recruiting is to present yourself as a gender diverse business because it's kind of the thing to do and pay lip service to in order to attract millennials. Until the day I see a lad in a dress as a clerk in my local NatWest branch, I don't buy the sincerity of it one bit.

>>19693
Hey, that train, I get that train all the time.

>>19731
That train gets you, too. Really gets you.

>>19732
No one gets me that's why I'm like this.

>>19733
Sounds like you've gone off the rails.

>>19731
>>19732
Just get a siding already.