Disqus - Latest Comments for tet3

Re: Nuuly vs. Rent the Runway: Battle of the Clothing Rental Services

thomast — Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:15:16 -0000

This comment adds nothing to the content in the article that addresses this specific point. My partner, who previously bought lots of fast-fashion items that didn't last, has rediscovered the value of better-made, longer-lasting clothing and has bought several items from Nuuly. Nuuly, at least (idk about RTR) ships in reusable, zippered nylon bags, with no additional packaging, unless you're the first renter of an item and it's in whatever came from the manufacturer.

Re: Chocolatey Software | Todoist 1.0.7

thomast — Tue, 28 Mar 2023 12:41:20 -0000

I see the update in the github repo, but this is still showing 1.0.7, but it installed v1.0.8. Anyway to try a push to the community feed again?

Re: Roast Pork and Broccoli Rabe Sandwich Recipe (Best Recipes, Ideas & Advice) - Tasting Table

thomast — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 15:57:48 -0000

A major detail missing from the recipe is that the cheese should be sharp, aka aged, provolone. That very mild stuff is no good for this sandwich.

Re: Newt Gingrich on Shortlist for Trump's Chief of Staff

thomast — Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:12:08 -0000

I didn't know the stories about 2-4! Wow, what a strange, horrible man he is. Thanks for highlighting that aspect of his history of mendacity with good humor! Here's a link for anyone else who didn't know those names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Re: Which Salesforce IDE Should I Use? | LaceySnr.com

thomast — Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:16:34 -0000

Really looking forward to this! VS Code + official extensions seems to require Salesforce DX project structure and workflow. Are you looking at those, or other extensions?

Re: 8 grammar mistakes even smart and sexy people like you are making

thomast — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:53:46 -0000

Saw this awesome video on the topic shortly after seeing the TBT re-link:
https://www.facebook.com/ba...

Re: 8 grammar mistakes even smart and sexy people like you are making

thomast — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:00:45 -0000

Acronym abuse happens not just when one of the terms is repeated in full-word form, but in general when people forget what the acronym means.

For instance, if you receive an RFP, the work you prepare in response is *not* also an "RFP". It might be a "proposal", or a "paper", or, if you must, an "RFP response". But answering a request with another request is unlikely to get the results you want.

Re: Northside cuts band Good English connected to Brock Turner rape case

thomast — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 14:17:33 -0000

The three band members are sisters, so that option is not terribly straightforward for a whole host of reasons.

Re: John McCain Backs Trump, Puts Nail in Coffin of His Already Disastrous Legacy - by Ben Cohen

thomast — Tue, 10 May 2016 17:10:47 -0000

She has earned criticism, obviously. One of the problems with attacks on people that rely on sexism, racism, etc, is that they are inherently *not* limited to the mentioned target.

Re: John McCain Backs Trump, Puts Nail in Coffin of His Already Disastrous Legacy - by Ben Cohen

thomast — Tue, 10 May 2016 15:39:58 -0000

Y'know what ruins your credibility, Ben Cohen of the Daily Banter? Stupid sexist comments about Sarah Palin. She was and is a nightmare politically. But whether or not she used to compete in beauty pageants is not relevant. And "barely literate" is obviously not literally true, and I think that one should call her experience and knowledge into question directly, not with sideswipes at her overall intellect.

Re: The No-Bullshit Guide: 2016 Election’s Biggest Winners and Losers

thomast — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:36:47 -0000

Thanks for making the appropriate edits!

Re: The No-Bullshit Guide: 2016 Election’s Biggest Winners and Losers

thomast — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:01:36 -0000

Neither Tonyelle Cook-Artis nor Ben Waxman was in the race for the 202nd district, which is the district where Jared Solomon beat Mark Cohen. Cook-Artis ran in the 200th, Waxman in the 182nd. One of Waxman's and Sims's other opponents was Marni Snyder - making your characterization of the four-way ballot as a "four-man race" particularly glaring. That, and the fact that it is the year two thousand and freaking sixteen of the Common Era.

Re: 90/10 is equality? Fuck you, feminists.

thomast — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:48:15 -0000

Not legally. $10k doesn't quite get you a half-time employee at NY's minimum wage of $9 plus employer's half of FICA.

And one study (granted, by the nanny association, which is likely to inflate things a bit, but not 3x) found the average live-in nanny salary in the US to be $652 (almost $34k/year). https://www.care.com/a/what...

But if you google this woman's name, you can find out that what happened here is they spent most of what the husband made, on vacations, parties, etc. So 90% of their assets at the time of the divorce wasn't all that much in terms of actual total value. And the husband was walking away from the marriage with substantial earning power and, as I noted, a good number of years left to work.

Re: 90/10 is equality? Fuck you, feminists.

thomast — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:32:16 -0000

Yes, my comment explicitly acknowledges that assumption, and roots it in my personal experience. It is no less valid than the opposite assumption that JB makes in her post, based on the original linked article. I don't know where you live that you can get full-day childcare for 2 children (using my assumption of the spacing of the children, no more than 2 should need that at once), a cook and a housekeeper for $10k, but it's not London. And that match ignores the potential intrinsic benefits, anyway. I simply don't believe that she made a unilateral decision to leave the workforce, yet the marriage stayed together for another 15-20 years. Even if she did make the choice by herself and her husband opposed it, then he still has significant responsibility because he stayed in the marriage with this lazy, entitled harpy for so long.

Re: Federal judge: religious schools not required to serve students with diabilities

thomast — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 05:53:16 -0000

Reprehensible behavior is not necessarily illegal behavior. It sounds like there may have been both here, and the suit continues, just not on ADA grounds.

Just because Quaker schools don't overtly proselytize and accept students from many different faith backgrounds doesn’t mean that they aren't religious schools under the ADA.

Re: Was The #FlyingWhileBlack Hoax Premeditated?

thomast — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:01:20 -0000

Jesus, that's a lot of work and writing for "Corporate PRs flaks are more credible to me than black women poets."

And boy, you really enjoy making HUGE assumptions about people based on their tweets - someone who mentions their dislike of lines is "entitled," someone who buys airport chocolate has "impulse control issues."

I'm not gonna bother writing several hundred words about it, but while I don't think Cezanne's account or the AA statement reveals the entire truth about this incident, they are both massively more credible than this drivel. Also, "opinions" and "baseless conjecture" are different things. This article is almost entirely the latter.

Re: 90/10 is equality? Fuck you, feminists.

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:40:50 -0000

Goodness, you do take a dim view of marriage, don't you? Two individuals, making completely independent decisions for which each alone is responsible, with no moral or financial obligations to one another whatsoever. I can see how that worldview would lead to becoming so spiteful and mean.

Coming to the end of a very different marriage, my experience is that spouses make financial and work/home responsibility decisions together, assuming the risks and enjoying the rewards jointly. So, together they made the decision for Jane to be a stay-at-home mother, and jointly assumed the risk of her decline in job skills and earning power, and enjoyed the benefits of children raised in their own home: no childcare costs, perhaps better parental attachment, strong school support when the time came, etc. The article doesn't say anything about the children's ages, but if, say, they waited 3 years to start trying to have children, had the first a year later, and had them at 3-year intervals, then we get to 17 or 18 years before the last is in full-day school. 14 years out of the workforce in the 20th/21st century isn't much different from 25 in terms of impact on ability to rejoin the workforce.

This notion that she "contributed nothing" to the their joint wealth is absurd on its face. First, in very concrete financial terms, having her stay at home meant that no portion of their single family income had to go to childcare. If she took on the full complement of home tasks, then they may well have spent less on dining out or other expensive food choices that two-income households often make. If she cleaned, then that either contributes to their quality of life and spares them living in filth, or it saves them having to pay for cleaning help. Depending on the assets in the home, perhaps her care of them helps maintain or even increase their value. Maybe she did the heavy lifting for professional entertaining that was important for their joint financial success. In intrinsic terms, presumably they made the decision for her to stay at home because they felt it would give them better relationships with their children, all told; unless he bolloxed it up by cheating or abusing her, he retains this benefit following the divorce.

At the end of the day, they jointly made a decision to remove her from the workforce and provide for their family out of a single income and what they could amass from that. That decision doesn't vanish when the marriage ends. If there is no ongoing spousal support, then she has to live on that 90% of their assets at the time of divorce for probably the rest of her life. The husband can earn for 15 more years and retire at a usual age of 65, and since those should be the most lucrative earning years of his life, he could end up fine. If there is ongoing support on top of the 90/10 division, then I would agree that that seems suspect. I'm also curious why they did 90/10 rather than ongoing spousal support, since the former seems irrevocable in the case of remarriage or other change in circumstances for Jane.

There's another big wildcard that isn't mentioned in the article - if there are assets that were gifted or willed to her directly, those are hers anyway. Though that should be part of the consideration in making a division of assets decision.

Re: SJW Insanity #1: Jessica Valenti

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:01:20 -0000

Because "followed" means "100% believes", right?

Re: SJW Insanity #1: Jessica Valenti

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:39:52 -0000

"Pussy." Good one, man, you've got me all figured out. Spot on, brilliant commentary.

Re: SJW Insanity #1: Jessica Valenti

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:26:58 -0000

Stumbled on this hell hole by accident. Just to be clear - you want your "fans" to pay you for sarcastic dramatic readings of screencaps, sprinkled with occasional additional insults? But Jessica Valenti is the one who's "batshit crazy"? LOL. I mean, I'm your political polar opposite, but I can't imagine thinking that someone doing mean-spirited readings of Ponnaru, Erickson, and Glenn Reynolds would be funny or interesting, much less worth paying for.

Re: Latest Racial Hoax? #FlyingWhileBlack

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:03:41 -0000

My comment was quite brief; allow me to clarify it. I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't write an opinion piece, or that I didn't recognize this is one. I meant that defending poorly supported opinions on the basis that others had posted opposing opinions based on a different reading of the same source is pathetic and lame.

Re: Latest Racial Hoax? #FlyingWhileBlack

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:59:28 -0000

But your own research, fact-checking, and reading comprehension are so laughably terrible that your counter-screed has no credibility whatsoever. You invent this idea that she put her wallet-type items in her checked luggage, and then later express surprise when she says she's on a bus and wonder how she got the money. When the obvious read of the tweets about not having $4-500 and later "no money to get anywhere" is understanding that she's in an *airport* and was intending to *fly*, and is tweeting *in the moment*, which, regardless of fault, was undoubtedly stressful. So she's not sure what her next steps are, and then later figures out that she can get to Atlanta in 6+ hours for a $15-20 bus ticket.

Your sample of 8 white people who don't know who Emmett Till, Medgar Evars, and Amadou Diallo are (to choose the other more distinctive first names from the Tshirt list) only proves that you and the people you asked are profoundly, perhaps willfully, ignorant of the history of anti-black violence in this country. I mean, the entire post is its own profound testament to that, but the notion that only black people would recognize those names is a glaring instance of your racial predjudice.

Re: Latest Racial Hoax? #FlyingWhileBlack

thomast — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:30:20 -0000

"Other people might have made crap up, so that fact that I made crap up is ok." Brilliant.

Re: Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Wev in an Endless Series

thomast — Thu, 21 May 2015 17:03:28 -0000

While I don't deny that there is some sexism here, this type of commentary is pretty similar to some of what was said about Al Gore in 2000. Their situations have a number of similarities - both worked for the Democratic administration being termed out, both served in the Senate, and both had long political careers, so that their various positions and compromises were abundantly clear. Most importantly, both were essentially uncontested in the primaries - Bill Bradley was never a serious candidate, and (lamentably) Bernie Sanders isn't either. So in both cases, the discussion during primary season is about rallying the entire breadth of the Democratic party behind one candidate, rather than which candidate is the one to nominate. This means that the candidate's flaws, as perceived by different factions, are more likely to come up than in a competitive primary, where each candidate's backers are talking exclusively about why their candidate is the best, and secondarily about *other* candidates flaws.

Re: UPDATED: Worst. Mail. Ever. Kenyatta Hit Piece Pictures Ori in a Hot Tub

thomast — Thu, 07 May 2015 01:51:21 -0000

Is any accusation of self-enrichment at the expense of others anti-Semitic when leveled against a Jewish person? If not, what language could be used to make such an accusation that would not be anti-Semitic? What about the "tone" of this piece makes it anti-Semitic?
I'm asking seriously.