and you don’t want it full of scratches, since cover glasses and protection cases will probably be quite complicated for these monstrosities?

You and one other person changed the conversation

oh, did we forget to ask you what kind of conversation is allowed? 😂

that by blaming women

stating a fact is stating a fact, not “blaming anyone”.

And if these guys don’t take no for an answer, then women should cover their drinks,

you can cover whatever you want, it is your drink. this discussion is about the fact that they found women that said yes and therefor allowing them to spread their genes. miller - 3 kids, hagseth - 4 kids, vance - 3 kids.

jeez, you ran away fast, you sore loser.

no, you are just making up bullshit just so you have something to get mad about. he is saying if no woman would spread legs for these assholes, they would not reproduce.

yes, it would be nice if they weren’t assholes in the first place, but since they are, there is one more threshold where spreading their assholism(is that a word?) onto another generation can be stopped.

that’s just a fact, there is no misogyny, so you climb back of your high horse before you fell down and hit your head.

and you do realise it ALSO involves the mother, right?

no, he is saying it takes two people and if just one of them says no, it does not happen.

not the point. the point was that “conspiracy of ai corporations to drive traffic to themselves” doesn’t make much sense.

chatgpt and claude were both down

Your completely missing my point.

not how it works, you finding it hard to come up with answers to questions regarding your point does not mean i am missing it.

cities i have lived in are none of your business.

why do you think that chance of being hit by a bus are “essentially zero”? and why is it different from the cars in the same city on the same roads, aka THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE - no matter how good or bad?

if drunken tourists aren’t getting hit by a car because of good infrastructure, why is there a need to lower their speed and why does the same need does not apply to buses?

By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.

it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.

airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.

the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?

if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.

if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.

and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?

you forgot to answer this question

I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like

i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.

There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.

and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?

And with that, hopefully we can put this argument to rest.

wow… the idea that the anecdotal evidence of some youtuber should be the proof, not the engineering and chemistry knowledge of people who designed the battery and charging system and know how it works, is on par with the belief that global warming is caused by farts of the turtles carrying the earth. sad noises.

i really do not want to hold your hand. you started talking to me, refused to clarify and you are trying to pretend like you “won”. how was kindergarten today?

i have no idea how it relates to what i said.

i still have no idea what you are trying argue.

not every situation is as extreme as you make it and while you have a point, it doesn’t make mine invalid

what?

and no sane woman should believe that, because if she will later find the guy was lying, it is not going to be the guy having to deal with the consequences. so it is quite stupid take.

ffs