GreyEyedGhost

Ive thought of it. Probably going to do sunglasses first, t’hough. Or rather second, after my single vision safety glasses.

Yeah, but that isn’t a one-time cost, either. That’s a recurring cost, typically on a biannual basis, and usually much higher than the monthly subscription. That said, being able to walk out with something that is going to reliably work for the next couple years definitely has its benefits. Ive just never considered something with a definite lifespan and a requirement to replace as a one-time cost. Kind of like the difference between paying property taxes monthly or yearly - I’m still paying and it isn’t going to stop.

21 years with the same frames?

I have a pair on right now. They’re better than not seeing correctly, but only being able to focus on a computer screen with less than a third of your vertical field of view sucks. There are options, but one of the best is having more sets of glasses, which isn’t convenient or cheap. These could solve that. I’m sure Amazon will make it not worth it at some point, though.

If you think glasses are a one-time cost, I feel like you’ve never worn glasses. I had 10 years in my life where my vision didn’t change, and now I need bifocals/progressives. Given the nature of the condition, I expect to have to get new prescriptions every 2 to 4 years until I die or go blind.

That said, the rest of your comment is quite likely painfully true, especially if Amazon has their fingers in it.

Be sure to tell your grandkids it has real potential and they should check it out once the series is complete.

Appeals on acquittal are a thing. It’s hard to say how or if that would be relevant in this situation since it really depends on what triggers the appeal.

Looking way back, not really. There may have been a few times. I know some siblings had their room searched due to reasonable suspicion of drugs, but that was never a concern with me.

When raising my kids, I don’t think I ever searched their room, except to find something of mine that they may have used. The relationships were open enough that my kids just told me if they did something like drink while still minors. I did watch for signs of drug use, but all use was very casual and minimal risk to their health.

English has at least 5 (French, Germanic, Greek, Latin, Arabic, doubtless more) and it’s up to the user to know which is used in any given context. Or not. It’s really kind of stupid.

Not even jeans, or discussing not pooping. Then again, that last one seems to be off base for this sub, too…

Moreover, if you break those down to actual numbers, about 1080 men are killed by intimate partners per year while 1690 women are. So a guy has about 2/3 the likelihood of a woman of being killed in a relationship, as well. I guess we should all be scared! But, back to those numbers. Some website i searched said about 26% of American adults are in a relationship. Based on other numbers on there, that’s about 52 million people. For the sake of simplicity, we will say they are split evenly between genders, which rounds to about 26 million women. That works out to about 1 in 15,000 women in relationships being killed, which means that death by car crash is still twice as likely.

These deaths aren’t insignificant, but also point out that thinking every interaction is going to lead to death isn’t going to dramatically improve your safety.

It’s been a couple years since I used it, but after you create a wall, you can edit it in a dialog. The User Guide shows the dialog in question under editing walls, as well as the steps to access it.

So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.

I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.

Then what is the point of this entire paragraph?

Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between genders.

And this one?

Equality doesn’t mean you can only help the same number of people, or in the same locations, but that people have equal access to the services needed. And apparently you agree. Yet you typed those two paragraphs anyway…

Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?

Imagine if we had a group that funded shelters for men and women. Nothing says they have to be in the same facilities - women aren’t all lumped into one facility, either, so this shouldn’t be inconceivable. Also, would it not be equality if all abuse victims, both women and men, got the help they need?

Goddamn, username checks out.

What you’re effectively saying is, “We’re specifically not focused on equality, only on where women have it worse than men.” And that’s fine, but then don’t also say, “If you support equality you support feminism,” because both of those things can’t be true at the same time. “We want to achieve equality between the sexes and for the most part women are disadvantaged, so we will focus on the inequality that is impacting women until they are at least on the same level where inequality is impacting men,” would be more appropriate in my opinion, but certainly isn’t going to be a winning slogan.

Like a burning bag of poop on the front porch?

They say “it”. One could assume it refers to the chlorine, or one could assume it’s the banned product that is treated with chlorine. Which one someone decides they’re referring to probably has to do with how disingenuous that person is being, given the rest of the topic is about chlorinated chicken and not the process itself.