I do wash mine quite often. Try to every time I wash the bedclothes.
I too got a new generic pillow for cheap. Ite just almost too thick for a support pillow and my main is memoryfoam, which I liked. So I just kept using my old secondary pillow instead of the new plump one. Going to have to “drive it in” I see.
every year
Oh.
Oh.
Ooooooh.
You’re supposed to do it every year?
It can feel a bit dramatic when they’re there literally a deer in your headlights, and you’re on a dark, icy road in the backwoods, doing 80kph.
And the motherfucker won’t move.
The only thing to do is to try to dodge them from whichever way they’re coming from.
And sometimes, it’s not a 60kg deer, but a 500kg moose. And them mofos are almost as stupid, twice as stubborn and also have an aggressive mode. (Albeit it’s kinda rare.)
No no, they have two responses, flight and freeze.
If they only had flight they’d be somewhat more predictable. As it is, you can’t trust them to even move when needed.
And I agree that venison is fucking delicious. Love me some venison mince ragu, get rosemary in the meat. Mmm.
Sloppers are lazy, they don’t know jack shit about masking something in photoshop pixel by pixel for hours.
But in this case, the alcoholic’s alcoholism is being evaluated by other drunks.
“Wha…? A fifth to s-s-start your day ish chompletely… hick nhormal.”
“Aghreed.”
So why don’t we treat excessive, unnecessary and wasteful wealth and power as an addiction that severely affects society
Because the money addicts also happen to have all the power.
D’you know what the first thing a drunk says when you call him a drunk? “I’m not a drunk”, while getting visibly upset and often violent.
The money addicts have all the money and all the power. And they all support each other in their delusions. And it’s not just some random delusion, it’s a global paradigm. So it’s kinda hard to point out their delusions when theyre shared by billions of wannabe rich people.
Even when we’re literally destroying the only planet known to support life.
according to the patent, “convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilization”.
I’ve heard this before but man that’s fkin crazy
Addiction
Literal money addiction.
Ever known anyone with a proper hard drug addiction? Them fuckers will do anything to get their fix. So will the rich. But their addiction just gives them more and more power to practice their addiction.
answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
No shit, Sherlock.
Which is why your complaint that bringing up all the hundreds of fucking privacy laws which explicitly define privacy is “childish and facile” is goddamn hilarious.
You’re just a sore kid crying because he was wrong.
You’re an illiterate moron.
Try to recap your point. Wait, you have none, because you too have admitted that metas glasses aren’t in any way a new problem.
That’s like being so shittingly brainless that you’d argue that the drug trade was invented with tor-networks.
You have no point you have no argument you’re just moving the goalposts because your tiny little ego can’t take having been wrong. I sincerely do hope you’re a kid, because having a psyche like that as an adult would be pitiful.
It’s not art, I’d argue. In the same scene that some long filmed things aren’t cinema.
I was (and am) hypervigilant because of the environment I grew up in.
By 7 I was already traumatised, probably. Didn’t know it back then though.
Fucking lol.
What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.
I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?
(edit, this is literally 90 years old)
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.
To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.
Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new
In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”
Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”
https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB
It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
Lol, no. You’re just wrong. You think its not allowed to film on the street when you’re in Switzerland? That you’d need to stop every single person and ask for their permission? If you genuinely believe that, then you’re not the sharpest pen in the case.
Germany the same.
You need to ask for permission if you go up to someone’s face and make them the primary target of your filming. But for just general filming for personal use, nope, you’re wrong, it’s allowed in public.
Why don’t you google shit before being so incorrect publicly?
Or perhaps did some hardcore googling where you don’t actually look for info on the subject, but instead decide how a thing is and then google to find any random post on some forum agreeing with it, without sources.
It’s the same law I mentioned earlier. These have been accounted for decades before you were even born, and it honestly would’ve been really easy for you to figure that out instead of just trying to prove your delusions correct. Perhaps you asked an LLM with a prompt that already had it as an assumption and then it hallucinated a bunch of shit. But yeah, you’re wrong.
Tell me a place which does.
Places which you aren’t allowed to film on the street?
Because no matter how furiously you google, a majority of the world allows it. Who doesn’t are like Chinese and Russians, but even they only limit it in certain cities / landmarks. So in a country like North Korea, you’d have “reasonable expectation of privacy”, except ofc you don’t it’s a totalitarian dictatorship.
Every single photographer knows this. Or should know it at least, basic laws covering privacy.
In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things put into a public space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy
“But that’s just America”
Yeah I’m not American. I most intimately know Finnish laws and while there’s a million Karens who get upset if they think they’re being filmed (especially cops, I went to the supreme court and won when they prevented me from filming in my phone).
And there’s nothing in the GDPR that would ban filming in public or say that in public one could reasonably expect privacy. The exception is you can’t use that material for commercial purposes without a permit. But it’s completely fine for personal use.
They evidently went kinda easy on the religious teachings?
I’m not a religious man and despite monotheism as a phenomenon and think it’s bad for mankind, but even I know Mary was married to Joseph. Peter was one of Jesus’s apostles and the first pope.