History Youtube gets pretty whack about this because Google’s adsense algorithm freaks out when words like “Nazi” and “Stalin” appear. To name a few examples:

• “The Famine” in place of “Holodomor”
• Jo. [CENSORED] in place of “Stalin”, “The Patsies” in place of “The Nazis”

The second example is particularly amusing, being a video about how Shostakovich circumvented soviet censorship while self-censoring all instances of “Stalin” within the script.

You the real MVP 👑

Still waiting for git good unfortunately 😔

• Alexei Navalny
• Markus Persson
• David Attenborough

The problem was acknowledged in a frank and unqualified manner… and they want to try fixing it? Is that allowed? Things can get better?? I, uh… gotta go return some videotapes

Sugarcoating pills is fairly common, especially for pills which are frequently ingested or target older demographics. It’s because sugar coatings are much gentler on the esophagus (i.e.: less likely to cause esophagitis, “pill burn”). Advil (i.e.: ibuprofen) is a cheap, well tolerated, and non habit-forming pain reliever – it’s about as safe as such a thing could possibly be, so hopefully that helps to explain why a sugar coating might be warranted given the aforementioned upsides (for the love of all that is holy; always read the directions on the label, it’s still quite possible that Advil is not safe for you specifically). FWIW: the bottles also have childproofing mechanisms built into the caps (… at least in U.S. markets. Not sure about elsewhere?)

Watch out I saw these guys about to show up at your inbox

No, but now that you mention it that would be a pretty plausible thing to have happen. Just grabbing hold of a random armchair analysis and then repeating it ad nauseum until it transforms into an irony-poisoned meme totem… you’ve really gotten my hopes up now!

95% of the time he plays the straight-man and then the other 5% of the time he behaves like an unhinged lunatic. It’s the perfect recipe for cultivating an audience of viewers who love to torment him with his own words. After that it’s just one step further to put words he didn’t say into his mouth and see how he reacts to getting gaslit.

I make it sound like a cynical ploy but really this kind of thing is just intrinsically tied to Jerma’s online personality. Lightning in a bottle. If you ask me the most impressive part’s actually how he manages to stay in control of the situation and not get totally swallowed up by the increasingly bizzare behavior of his viewership.

(You’ve not been good)

Mayo, mayo, mayo, mayo. I’d eat mayo flavored icecream if only the frozen dairy industry weren’t so cowardly

I’ll go to bat for Roborock. All common “user serviceable” parts are available for direct order from them and remain the same between generations so even very old models can be easily maintained with first-party parts.

They unfortunately won’t sell you an internal part like a motor, but you can still find new first-party parts if you know where to look and it generally only takes removing ~10 screws to get at the insides (example).

Still no free blowjobs!

“He who smelt it dealt it, and I am no blacksmith good sir”

FWIW: Marxists weren’t blind to this obvious omission. The International was what we’d call a “big tent” coalition, so contentious questions were frequently hand-waved away in this fashion. Individual Marxists – including those as foundational as Engels – absolutely had opinions on the subject and they were not afraid to do the 19th century equivalent of Twitter dunking on those who would fantasize over establishing stateless utopias. Quoting Engels circa 1872 (bolded emphasis is my own, italicised emphasis preserved from original translation):

While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary say: do away with capital, the appropriation of the whole means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall away of itself. The difference is an essential one. Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is in itself the social revolution and involves a change in the whole method of production. Further, however, as for Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or whatever it may be. Hence therefore complete abstention from all politics. To perpetrate a political action, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to conduct propaganda, abuse the state, organise, and when all the workers are won over, i.e., the majority, depose the authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organisation of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.

[…]

Now as, according to Bakunin, the International is not to be formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organisation as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakunist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = an absolute evil. (How these people propose to run a factory, work a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a unified direction, they do not indeed tell us.) The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous, but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again remains silent.

Few movements self-identify as “Socialist”, at best it’s a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of “Animals” – it’s an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.

With that being said, let’s talk about some more concrete terms – apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:

• Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
• Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing’s perfect, but come on… you’d have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
• Democratic Socialists of America: I’m a member – that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
• European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
• Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I’d be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that’s possible) in 1923, but not 2023
• Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It’s easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that’s altogether different from “liking”
• Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it’s questionable exactly how many of us would live through that… but never say never.

I burst into a short musical number, then put my coat on and peoplewatch at the park with a sandwich.

In-group signalling. One of the many microhabits you need to acquire in order to fit in with the local culture and nothing more. As usual, people make up reasons to justify why their cultural proclivities are objectively right but these are without exception completely post-hoc.

A self-portrait. If it turns out unrecognizable, just move the goalposts and tell the viewer that it’s a depiction of their mum.

Also worth noting that most companies prefer to treat any given firing as “without cause” because stating a reason is usually a net-loss in terms of legal exposure.

Exceptions to the rule include, but are not limited to:

• States which make it expensive/slow to fire without cause (because money)
• Union jobs (because union)
• Retaliative firings (because worker’s rights)
• Prejudiced firings (because civil rights)

How does one tell if they’re on the road to a with-cause termination? Simple: documentation. If you’re suddenly being put under a microscope it might indicate that a premeditated f-bomb is hiding around the corner.