@Tinuviel said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:
@Derp said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:
that doggo has too much skin
It's a mashup of part of the cutscene from the opening of Resident Evil only redone with some kind of fuzzy pupper and done with a Dark Souls 'you died'.
Gawd.
@Ghost said in Image Attribution & Creative Commons:
@Auspice Or this.
As a longtime fan of that series, that doggo has too much skin.
The crust thing, yes, but also the texture. It's like -- table salt vs. sea salt.
Here, check this out:
@Tinuviel said in PB 'realism':
@Derp Is panko different to 'traditional' breadcrumbs?
Traditional breadcrumbs are smallish things that absorb a lot of moisture. Panko crumbs are bigger and a bit heartier. They can take more of a beating from moisture and still retain a lovely crunch.
@Tinuviel said in PB 'realism':
Though mac and cheese in a light pastry and baked into a pie doesn't sound like a terrible idea...
Pastry is too much effort. Just toast a shitload of panko in some garlic butter and cover. You know you have the right amount when you can't see any of the mac and cheese underneath.
@Tinuviel said in PB 'realism':
If you want crunchy pasta, add cheese and let it bake.
This is one of the few times on MSB when I am truly glad I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Thank you for not being a goddamn monster. Whew.
@Tinuviel said in PB 'realism':
@Derp said in PB 'realism':
Pasta should be chewy. Not soft enough you don't even need teeth for it.
Depends on what you're doing with it, but I generally agree.
Pasta should not crunch, though. If you want crunchy pasta, add cheese and let it bake.
I -- what?
The fuck do you people do to mac and cheese? O_o
@Auspice said in PB 'realism':
@Tinuviel said in PB 'realism':
@Groth said in PB 'realism':
@surreality
It's spiral pasta or nothing! Especially if you fry them in a pan after boiling so they become crunchy on the outside.Pasta should only be crunchy before it's cooked.
Yeah, but then you get the other end of the extreme -- pasta that's just a ball of mush.
Pasta should be chewy. Not soft enough you don't even need teeth for it.
This is why people that put pasta in soups and just let it sit there until it's all mushy and gross are going to a very special hell.
@tek said in PB 'realism':
I won't play with someone with an anime pb. Full stop.
This, but fucking chibi.
#SorryNotSorry
My thoughts -- yes and no.
You would be amazed at what law school doesn't teach you, so 'incomplete education' is really like -- everyone with a J.D. when it comes time to actually practice / pass the bar, and law students will let you know it. Readily.
It could lead to public perceptions shifting a bit negative, but her actual knowledge of matters, depth-wise, isn't really that much of a factor when you look at the reality of how it works. Imposter syndrome is really high in the legal field for a reason. The law is huge, and poorly codified, which is why West and its competitors make money hand over fist charging for what is essentially a low-grade google of legal texts.
But more attention on actual facts can do a world of good, even if she's doing it selfishly.
@Roz said in Separating Art From Artist:
Eh, I think discrimination of protected classes doesn't have requirements based on size the way some other federal requirements do (like FMLA).
In employment they do. 15 or more employees, or 20+ for age discrimination.
Agree with the rest.
I do not know how updated this is, but here is a link with minimum number of state employees to be covered under state laws, too:
https://www.workplacefairness.org/minimum
And here is what the federal stuff looks like:
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/do_laws_apply.cfm
That's true, and I should have mentioned that. Not all employers fall under the auspices of either federal or state laws. Small businesses rarely fall under either.
@bored said in Separating Art From Artist:
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Literally no one is treating at-will employment as a good thing.
You seem to be arguing that you don't support it, but only because you're in the UK. In the US, the only way people are getting fired for tweets (which you 100% support) is via at-will employment laws or (equally shady and anti-labor) 'morality clauses' in contracts. You can't separate the two things. If you want people to be able fired for (edit: relatively trivial - yes people can be fired for crimes and such) things that have literally nothing to do with their job, you're in favor of anti-labor employment laws. Consequences, as you like to say!
This is a false dichotomy.
You did. See? Right there. Bolded sections mine.
@Bored attempted to point out that believing, universally, that certain actions should come with certain consequences necessitates accepting that those consequences have to happen within an inseparable legal framework, which you attempted to say was a false dichotomy and that he was setting up a strawman.
The UK may have different laws, but UK law is not universal law, any more than US law is. But US law is more restrictive, and in order for it to happen in the US, you must by necessity use at-will employment, or in places where at-will employment was explicitly revoked in order to protect against pretextual end-runs of legally protected statuses the substantial equivalent, you are in fact supporting the substantial equivalent of at-will employment.
Unless you think that only citizens of the UK should be subject to such. Is that what you're arguing?
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
Except no, because I live in the UK, where we do not have at-will employment laws and I have illustrated it's entirely possible for a better system to exist. So yes, this is a false dichotomy, and saying that I'm in favour of at-will employment laws when I've explicitly said I'm not is, also, another strawman.
We aren't talking about the UK. We're talking about the United States. So what you're actually attempting to do is argue the counterfactual by imposing a set of standards outside of the stated parameters. In the context of 'what options are actually available to citizens of the United States within the laws available to them', which was the actual example given, there is no false dichotomy, and pointing out that your support of one outcome under the given premises necessitates your making a certain set of choices is hardly a strawman.
Do you see why your response is problematic in this context? Someone said 'these are our currently available choices' and you attempted to impose others into a system where they are not available, and then proceeded to try and deflect from that by trying to call out their arguments as fallacious and intellectually dishonest when, in fact, you were the one that was engaging in the traditionally intellectually disallowed behavior.
@Kestrel said in Separating Art From Artist:
This is a false dichotomy.
And that was kind of a weak pivot, given that you didn't actually refute the claim. He's not wrong -- various forms of ideology are protected classes under united states law, and therefore it is illegal to retaliate against someone in the workplace for simply adhering to one you don't agree with. You cannot use this as a basis to fire them. You have to either rely on at-will employment standards, wherein you don't have to provide a reason, or find some other (pretextual) reason for engaging in the action, at which point you are simply using some aspect of their job to take action against them for something unrelated to the performance of the actual job. It's not a false dichotomy, it's an actual dichotomy. They are mutually exclusive options. You either refrain from firing them for something under the auspices of a protected class, or you find some reason to take an action against them in another way since you are barred from doing so under the protected class. Suggesting that you are in favor of taking action against someone for a legally protected status leads, by necessity, to the idea that you are attempting to circumvent the very laws which protect them in the first place. Q.E.D.
I liked the first Final Fantasy 13. The second one was alright. The third one got -- messianic salvation of the world's souls before the end of the world and I just can't even.
@Auspice said in Separating Art From Artist:
sexuality,
Only in like two circuits, where sexual orientation is regarded as an inherent characteristic of sex. Otherwise you sure the fuck can be fired for being whatever.
@Killer-Klown said in Tastes Less Carrot-y:
@Derp Fair warning; it will now, always, sound like that.
Y u do dis? What did I ever do to you? 
@Tinuviel said in The Work Thread:
ETA: Also probably not a good idea for folks to draw Aboriginal people, you know, on fire.
