I have not. Maybe I’ll try it again someday because I actually have more than once hated a movie first try and liked it on second viewing.

Zardoz is legit a good movie

I assumed it was going to be, but when I watched I found it aggressively terrible.

Say what you mean: “I do not care what is true because what I want to happen is way more important”.

Sure go ahead and assume I want the cat to die. Which I didn’t. What the fuck.

The cat was rescued apparently anyway.

Careful, a bunch of downvotes and nasty comments probably are coming your way despite there being a good reason for such regulations.

Apparently, yes.

Since you’re going to assume the worst possible reading, I will assume projection on your part.

Yeah, I knew when I commented it might get some backlash, but the strength of it is somewhat depressing. Isn’t Lemmy supposed to be mostly rational intelligent people?

I guess it just tells us how commonplace it is for people to declare a risk either worth it or non-existent without a fucking clue about the actual risk they are talking about.

In any case, thank you for demonstrating that there are still some sane people left out there.

I never remotely commented that backup systems shouldn’t be tested. Bizarre.

I do not follow the logic of people being so blinded by their love of cats that they literally think they can become electrical grid engineers and know all the risks, just because they want to know them.

It does not matter if every single vulnerable building has backups and tested them yesterday (obviously none of that could ever be close to true), it’s still a non-zero risk to human lives, for one cat.

Patently absurd. Technology often fails regardless of what you do. Inviting that failure would be negligence and should be illegal.

The one thing I know for sure about any engineer is that we are intimately familiar with the concept of things failing when it’s least convenient.

There would always be a risk any backup systems fail. As another commenter pointed out, in other countries it would be illegal to cut power like that for that kind of reason. And that’s a good thing. Power is literally keeping people alive and shouldn’t be turned off because it seems mean to leave it on.

But a better point is, no one discussing this knows what downstream effects could happen if they killed the power. Seems kind of crazy to me to pretend we do.

Has anyone considered that turning off the power might not even be possible without turning it off at hospitals and other critical locations…?

Sounds like a lovely friend

deleted by creator

Reddit is so absurdly toxic that I couldn’t be there maybe even if you paid me. Billions of users defending every evil action that occurs. Fuck reddit.

Interesting how seriously people itt are taking this. Obviously it’s not very likely the change was specifically to warm you up to losing ownership of your computer, although it’s also not entirely impossible that kind of culture at Microsoft contributed to the decision subconsciously.

It’s a meme. Seems like Peter Griffin’s presence here would indicate we’re not really making a claim about a real conspiracy…

Thanks. The user I was talking to here was quite reasonable and that made it easy for me to reciprocate.

You might be onto something here. I’m not sure though. I have a feeling it’s complicated and something we won’t fully understand any time soon.

If anything that text should’ve been sent in reverse.

Last night was fun, but it was weird the way you looked at me when I ate food at a restaurant. I don’t wish to continue this.