Avatar

It's a Ghost Account

@rebard-main

There's nothing here. I work from my secondary account now. Kind of have to keep this though because my other account isn't a main.

i went to a tiny counterserve diner once and accidentally poured sugar instead of salt all over my hashbrowns and was eating them sadly anyways. the waitress took them away and started making me another one and I tried to protest, but she just snorted and said "we're not catholic here". now every time i'm doing something painful out of obligation i think about how that is not repenting, this body is not a catholic establishment, there is no nobility in suffering.

i see a convo w a character ai and i keep scrolling

listen im seeing tags about people agreeing that ai bots can be really inaccurate and i want to point out that this is NOT about that. the ai bot can be as accurate as you want it to be i still get mad at em.

its not about how good they do at emulating a character, its about that they aren’t a person making creative choices and i hate that. i want to enjoy my characters with other people. hold my hand and tell me all about why you think your blorbo is autistic or likes your favourite shitty band. i love you. if a bot randomly shuffles those opinions out idc if theyre even the same ones im exploding it with my mind.

What’s the point of loving content if I know there isn’t someone as obsessively fucked up as me sitting on the other side of the internet

You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.

Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”

Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.

I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones. 

Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.

2nd degree burns actually heal pretty quickly and that’s in adults, children have a borderline superhero-level healing factor. Also the nugget was pressed against the child’s skin for a full 2 minutes. The mother is more at fault than McDonald’s here for giving the small child the food almost immediately after getting the order that was cooked at a fairly normal temperature and collected swiftly. Of course it was gonna be hot. Hot like the handle of a cast-iron skillet, you can hold it for some time but after a bit it’s gonna hurt, and for longer you could blister.

The chicken nuggets were being served at a temperature of ~200°F, despite McDonald’s supposedly having a policy of serving food at temperatures no higher than 160°F. The girl is autistic, and the chicken nugget remained in contact with her body that long because she was unable to communicate to her mother where the chicken nugget had gotten caught as it was burning her. She has a permanent scar from the experience. The family was only asking for $15,000, which is not for anywhere near the level of profit that we know that McDonald’s has made from repeatedly choosing cost-cutting tactics over the health and safety of their consumers and employees. And by the way? Most insurance companies require the victim to sue, and won’t cover any medical costs if they don’t.

What part of all the way up your McFuckingAss did you not fucking understand?!

Ronald McDonald isn’t going to fuck you, and if you want to pathetically simp for a multi-billion dollar corporation, you should do that on your own fucking post.

Wait what? 200°??? Permanent scarring? My info put it at a second degree burn at worst, even a pretty bad one typically heals relatively well.

Second-degree burns can range from quite mild to fairly severe - they can absolutely lead to permanent scarring if they are on the severe end of the spectrum. In this case, yes, the incident in question left permanently scarring - and the girl’s mother testified that her daughter (now seven years old, as this incident was three years ago) refers to the still-quite-visible burn scar as “her chicken nugget”.

And as for not having read anything that mentioned the “served at 200°F” part of this whole case? HMM IT’S ALMOST LIKE THERE WAS SOME EXTREME JOURNALISTIC SPIN APPLIED TO MAKE THIS CASE SOUND WAY MORE FRIVOLOUS THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS.

Wild how people will do that in cases where there’s a huge monetary incentive to minimize what happened, huh? Maybe someone should make a post about it.

Avatar

there's an episode of malcolm in the middle where he just shuts up and stops complaining for awhile and it immediately starts to significantly improve his life but also it causes him an ulcer and by the end of the episode he is literally spitting up blood and i have always deeply and unshakably believed that is exactly how the situation would play out for me too

The glass cliff, on the other hand, refers to the phenomenon by which women are more likely to be appointed to senior executive positions during times of organizational crisis, making them less likely to succeed. These newly appointed executives may confront internal board resistance, operate with less time flexibility, and ultimately receive shorter tenure than their male counterparts. And, when a woman CEO is terminated from her position, she is more likely than not to be replaced by a male (the “savior effect”).

He's stepping down so people don't pay attention to Tesla recalling 1 mil. cars.

They’re WHAT???

Also the woman named is an alt-right Trump supporter so....