Because of a snafu, nine of my eleven Firefox addons are disabled as being "legacy," even though they weren't like two hours ago.
Fucking dumb.
I'm outraged at myself. This morning I had myself change my mind about something. The reason?
Titties.
All of my life I've been against women plonking out their tits to breast feed. I've always thought it was unseemly and that there were other ways to do things in a more modest manner. I've been pretty staunch in that belief and dug in my heels numerous times.
But this morning I thought - the only basic difference between a man's boobs and a woman's boobs was women's boobs are fatter. What's the big difference in that? Why can a man go around shirtless but a woman cannot? Why are women's boobs highly sexualized and a man's cannot be? Why is a woman's mastectomy more "gross" than when a man has one?
It was an ad about breast cancer that was banned on facebook (featured on CBS, Buzzfeed, Tim Pool, etc.) that caught my attention and allowed me to think about the whole thing in a completely different way.
So... that's pretty much it.
posted by O-TrapBecause of a snafu, nine of my eleven Firefox addons are disabled as being "legacy," even though they weren't like two hours ago.
Fucking dumb.
7 of 8 for me. What's the solution? Without my lastpass extension, I literally cannot login to 95% of my websites and services.
posted by gut7 of 8 for me. What's the solution? Without my lastpass extension, I literally cannot login to 95% of my websites and services.
I actually went digging and found it. It's not an ideal fix, because it removes Firefox's signature checking process, but as long as you're just using the addons that have always been kosher, you shouldn't have any issues.
1. Go to the configuration editor (put 'about:config' without the single quotes in the URL bar).
2. Use the top search bar to search for: xpinstall.signatures.required
3. Toggle it to 'false'.
As long as you haven't removed any of the addons that aren't working, this should automatically re-enable all of them.
posted by O-TrapI actually went digging and found it.
Thanks. Google is supposedly going to push an update to fix it soon, but if not I'll try your method.
posted by gutThanks. Google is supposedly going to push an update to fix it soon, but if not I'll try your method.
Yeah, I'll probably undo my fix and use the official one when it's available.
In the meantime, if I can't use Lastpass and ScrollAnywhere, I'm gonna cut somebody.
Today, the fact liberals are going crazy about the NYT story about Trump's tax records from 1989-1994.
I don't get it. We all know his story during that time period. He ended up broke and bankrupt in the mid 1990s. So, of course he is going to show loses during that time. Also, I think it is largely irrelevant to now. I would bet that most voters don't give a damn about Trump's tax records from the early 1990s. They may care about them now, but not in the 90s.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Today, the fact liberals are going crazy about the NYT story about Trump's tax records from 1989-1994.
I don't get it. We all know his story during that time period. He ended up broke and bankrupt in the mid 1990s. So, of course he is going to show loses during that time. Also, I think it is largely irrelevant to now. I would bet that most voters don't give a damn about Trump's tax records from the early 1990s. They may care about them now, but not in the 90s.
Most people could care less about anyones tax returns.....they are worrying about their own.
posted by SpockMost people could care less about anyones tax returns.....they are worrying about their own.
Well, no. I think it's more than that. I think it's ammo. There seem to be people who loathe him to an indiscriminate degree, such that they don't really care what they throw at him as long as they have something to throw at him.
posted by O-TrapWell, no. I think it's more than that. I think it's ammo. There seem to be people who loathe him to an indiscriminate degree, such that they don't really care what they throw at him as long as they have something to throw at him.
Obviously.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Today, the fact liberals are going crazy about the NYT story about Trump's tax records from 1989-1994.
I don't get it. We all know his story during that time period.
I thought the same thing. But then I realized, most MILLENIALS don't know the story. And any time you can show someone didn't pay taxes, it's a win [since most people don't understand NOL carryforwards].
And, you could probably correctly assert that Trump was only able to get back on his feet because of his connections. Although he may have still had enough real estate equity to justify the loans.
Otherwise, just another sign of how far NYT has sunk. As you point out, this is not news.
Its really not different than how the right would have acted if Obama hadnt released his taxes. The people who now say who cares would have talked about it everyday. People claiming things that are not news now are the same ones losing their shit when obama golfed(also tan suit, michelle's bare arms, birth certificate, i could go on) who now call it business meetings. Both sides are exactly the same. The perspective of what is news and what isnt is strictly dependent on what party you side with. Neither side is worse. If you cant see that you are part of the problem.
posted by geeblockIts really not different than how the right would have acted if Obama hadnt released his taxes. The people who now say who cares would have talked about it everyday. People claiming things that are not news now are the same ones losing their shit when obama golfed(also tan suit, michelle's bare arms, birth certificate, i could go on) who now call it business meetings. Both sides are exactly the same. The perspective of what is news and what isnt is strictly dependent on what party you side with. Neither side is worse. If you cant see that you are part of the problem.
Generally, I think this is pretty much correct.
Remember all the people losing their shit when Obama spoke about restricting firearms? He didn't sign a single piece of legislation toward that end, unlike Trump, who finalized a ban on bumpstocks. Where are those people?
Remember all the people grabbing their torches and pitchforks when Obama's stimulus came up because of how it was opposed to free market? Have you seen any critical of the tariffs or the $2T infrastructure plan? I haven't.
The parties have become parties of lip service.
The Democrats are the party of individual freedom and civil liberties ... until we begin discussing trans fat, soft drinks over a certain size, using straws and plastic spoons, some drug use, what kinds of cars we drive, or the cow farms that provide a lot of the meat we eat.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism and free market ... until we begin discussing a Republican-driven stimulus, a new military conflict/war, Social Security, Republican-instituted tariffs, or a historically inconsistent and several-thousand-year-old defensive strategy.
Ask either party about these inconsistencies, and you'll get the stereotypical answer. "But this is so important. It's for ________. Obviously, you wouldn't want to live without ________. It would ruin/destroy/corrupt America."
The parties no longer have any more distinction than two rival sports teams. They're playing the same game, trade winning seasons back and forth, and neither has any distinguishable objective high ground.
posted by O-TrapGenerally, I think this is pretty much correct.
Remember all the people losing their shit when Obama spoke about restricting firearms? He didn't sign a single piece of legislation toward that end, unlike Trump, who finalized a ban on bumpstocks. Where are those people?
Remember all the people grabbing their torches and pitchforks when Obama's stimulus came up because of how it was opposed to free market? Have you seen any critical of the tariffs or the $2T infrastructure plan? I haven't.
The tariffs have more to do with curbing the theft of our technology and intellectual property. They also have to do with free markets, and as soon as they are, we can back off.
Take care.
Talk about a post coming true
posted by QuakerOats
17,617,000 Americans Work for Government!
Most of that is state and local government, which makes sense as there is 50 states. The feds numbered only 4,178,000. I gotta assume a good chunk of those feds are also DOD or defense related. So, if that 4.1 million is too high to you, seems like you need to cut DOD.
The Census Bureau also divided government workers into two categories. Federal government workers comprised one category, numbering 4,178,000 individuals. State and local government workers comprised the other, numbering 13,439,000.
posted by geeblockTalk about a post coming true
Yep. I present to you Exhibit A:
posted by QuakerOats
The tariffs have more to do with curbing the theft of our technology and intellectual property. They also have to do with free markets, and as soon as they are, we can back off.
Take care.
Thank you for being such a well-timed example of my point.
Our "technology" and "intellectual property" are not curbed by tariffs on physical materials. Those two things are, by definition, not physical. The former is entirely conceptual. The latter is, as its name suggests, 'intellectual' property.
Moreover, this is a regulation on domestic private business owners ... buyers and sellers ... as much as it is on a foreign nation's private business owners ... also buyers and sellers.
Your argument here can literally be summed up as saying, "The market needs government manipulation and increased regulation at the federal level in order to make it more free."
Same exact logic used by Obama in his little "spread the wealth" talk.
Again, thank you for the example.
I hated Obama (as a president not person, before gblock cries racism), but I honestly can say I wouldn't give any fucks if he didn't want to release his taxes. I hate taxes, so why the hell do I care?
The stimulus vs tariff comparison is a good one. Both are trash protectionist approaches to a US/capitalistic economy that truly doesn't need it. At what point in history did we as a country decide that failure is not an option?
posted by like_thatI hated Obama (as a president not person, before gblock cries racism), but I honestly can say I wouldn't give 0 fucks if he didn't want to release his taxes. I hate taxes, so why the hell do I care?
The stimulus vs tariff comparison is a good one. Both are trash protectionist approaches to a US/capitalistic economy that truly doesn't need it. At what point in history did we as a country decide that failure is not an option?
Fuck you
posted by geeblockFuck you
lol'd
posted by like_thatThe stimulus vs tariff comparison is a good one. Both are trash protectionist approaches to a US/capitalistic economy that truly doesn't need it.
The problem with the "free markets" argument is there actually ARE information asymmetries and other foundational assumptions that don't quite reflect reality.
The point of the tariffs was #1 to get China to assert some pressure on North Korea and #2 to get them to crackdown on the IP theft. And one could argue that, yes, corporations pay taxes in part for the US to protect their property rights. In a pure free market, you don't even need patents because the consumer doesn't buy from cheaters, right?
posted by like_thatlol'd
Lol sorry for being negative and dividing the country. I will try to do be
About Obama... I've seen it mentioned about a tan suit several times on here and other places. What does that even mean?
Obama wore a tan suit and I guess it was the first time a president didn’t wear a dark colored suit and it was the topic on Fox for 3 days. The right lost their minds saying he was ruining the country and had no respect for the office