What pissed you off today?

[cramx3]

We lived in an HOA housing development for a big after my dad had some back issues and therefore needed people to take care of the yard and whatnot (also my family was looking to downsize as well).  Living in those communities has it's ups and downs, but at the end of the day, you don't have the freedom you wish you'd have for owning a home.  There was some issue with the siding on all the houses in the neighborhood and there was no option, each house had to pay 40k to fix the issues.

[jingle.boy]

We lived in an HOA housing development for a big after my dad had some back issues and therefore needed people to take care of the yard and whatnot (also my family was looking to downsize as well).  Living in those communities has it's ups and downs, but at the end of the day, you don't have the freedom you wish you'd have for owning a home.  There was some issue with the siding on all the houses in the neighborhood and there was no option, each house had to pay 40k to fix the issues.

And what about the people that don't have $40k stashed in a shoebox under their bed?  This is the kinda shit would make my blood boil - forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own property and dwelling that I don't want to (or want to).  Like, if my roof was starting to deteriorate at about 15 years, and me getting a notice from Russell down the street that I have 90 days to replace my roof.  As I said, I get the aspect of shared services and shared amenities... but beyond that, go fuck off.

[cramx3]

We lived in an HOA housing development for a big after my dad had some back issues and therefore needed people to take care of the yard and whatnot (also my family was looking to downsize as well).  Living in those communities has it's ups and downs, but at the end of the day, you don't have the freedom you wish you'd have for owning a home.  There was some issue with the siding on all the houses in the neighborhood and there was no option, each house had to pay 40k to fix the issues.

And what about the people that don't have $40k stashed in a shoebox under their bed?  This is the kinda shit would make my blood boil - forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own property and dwelling that I don't want to (or want to).  Like, if my roof was starting to deteriorate at about 15 years, and me getting a notice from Russell down the street that I have 90 days to replace my roof.  As I said, I get the aspect of shared services and shared amenities... but beyond that, go fuck off.

I honestly don't remember, it was my parents issue not mine  but just remember my dad being LIVID, obviously.  I think they had meetings and votings and whatnot, so it wasn't just a random hammer coming down on you, but I think the community voted to do the fixings and so be it I guess.

[Stadler]

Believe me, Chad, I'm with you, but I'm also the guy that would fix that on my own because I value my investment.   Have you ever lived in a neighborhood and there's the one house that looks like it's been abandoned for a decade?   Even now, I'm not in an HOA, but my next door neighbor is historically deficient on her lawn mowing, even though she has two able-bodied high school kids living with her.   Her garage, which I get to look on, is literally missing two roofing shingles (which are lying in a pile on the ground where they fell... right next to the Adirondack chair that broke and got tossed there in lieu of the new rocking chair she sits in on the porch).    Don't get me started; I could get a ban for my feelings on her.  Suffice to say, the ONE TIME I saw her do work was shoveling her sidewalk and she would move a foot or so of snow and check her phone.  Foot or so of snow... check the phone.  Two feet, phone.  Foot, phone.   Fuck me running.  Sometimes I wish for an HOA.

[King Postwhore]

When a Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gets his death sentence vacated.

https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/us-appeals-court-vacates-death-sentence-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/L55YL6LRFFHP3CCT7TYXWOLY5M/

[gmillerdrake]

Leaving my ROKU Uktra 6.5 hours away at the Air b n b house we just stayed at for a week 

[TAC]

What is a ROKU Uktra?

[gmillerdrake]

What is a ROKU Uktra?

It’s a streaming device....you hook it up to your tv and then subscribe to whichever streaming services you like. It’s like a hub for all your tv viewing

[cramx3]

I got  roku in my family Kris Kringle last year and it's been really nice.  The basic one, I'd be pissed if i forgot it somewhere, but I haven't really traveled at all this year to want to bring it.

[TAC]

I'm lost.

[TAC]

So yesterday, Rob DeLuca, bass player with UFO, took part in a Zoom call. Last week, you could email questions and if picked, you'd get an invite for the call. My question was picked so I was invited to take part.

Unfortunately, we were travelling yesterday when the call was taking place. I haven't watched it yet and won't get a chance until later.

But this was posted along woth the youtube links of the call.




MY FUCKING NAME IS TIM!!!

[jingle.boy]

Are you sure?  If I were you, I’d just go with it. Which would make your new DTF handle, JAC.

[wolfking]

You have a new name my friend.

[TAC]

Are you sure?  If I were you, I’d just go with it. Which would make your new DTF handle, JAC.

Oh no! 

 

[Podaar]

Jim is decidedly a cooler name than Tim. Go with it!

[TAC]

Jim is decidedly a cooler name than Tim. Go with it!

Hey, I've been uncool for a long time. Why stop now?

[King Postwhore]

Last name OFF?

[cramx3]

Are you sure?  If I were you, I’d just go with it. Which would make your new DTF handle, JAC.

Last name OFF?

 

[Podaar]

No, last name Imhoff

[kirksnosehair]

People at the gym who never put anything back when they finish using it.  Rack your damned dumbbells you           


They're the same idiots who consistently walk around the gym with their face mask down on their chin covering nothing.   Humans consistently disappoint me. 

[ReaperKK]

Oh fuck that pisses me off, or people who take 5 different dumbbell weight sets for half an hour.

[jingle.boy]

Yeah, this enrages me. I’m so glad that I don’t go to a gym anymore, for this very reason. Last facility I went to was the local college. Very good gym, and very inexpensive ($250 for six months).  One Sunday morning, I’m the first one in the gym, and dumbbells are racked, but all over the place. 5s are besides 80s, and a bunch aren’t even paired together. I spent almost 10 minutes racking them all properly. It was a pretty decent warmup actually, but yeah, people that don’t re-rack weights (including plates) properly can go fuck a sack of wet mice.

[Evermind]

Man, I'm livid right now. It was a complete shitshow at work today (but actually the whole week) and it'll probably be worse tomorrow.

Last week I was three weeks in working on the current project and on Thursday I was hit with the usual "oh hey Ruslan, drop this project and immediately start working on that one, it's way more urgent". I hate when shit like that happens but over the last few years this has became routine as I usually work fairly quick and if there's anything urgent there's a good chance it'll go to me, okay fine. The new thing is essentially to get the 3D models of parts up to standards as the models were originally done by an outsourced organization and obviously they screwed it up (this has already happened in 2014 with another outsourced organization but I guess our company never learns any lessons); there are a number of comments about stuff that needs to be fixed. By my estimation, the job would take a week to finish and then you've got to get like 20 signatures from all the departments for it to be official. The deadline is Monday. We're "strongly encouraged" to work overtime during working days and also show up on Saturday and Sunday. That's a problem for me because

a) the payment for this is semi-official. There are no official overtime hours after COVID, but we are promised (verbally, not in writing) that we'll be compensated as a bonus. Problem is, I've been shortchanged twice in these 8 years already. I think 4 years ago we had the same kind of vague promise and I had nothing better to do so I worked evenings and weekends for two weeks and got a formal letter of gratitude which also added 500 rubles ($7) to my salary that month. This is still a thing I joke about with my friends. Now, during the COVID lockdown, we had two options, stay at home and do nothing and get our usual monthly salary, or work from home and get 30% more in bonuses (again, nothing in writing). Once again, I had nothing better to do so I worked from home for two weeks and got 2500 rubles ($35!) which was like a 1/5 from what I was promised. After these two instances I'm not working overtime unless the payment is official.

b) I spend 3 hours a day solely on my commute. Those are unpaid, obviously, so I would waste 3 hours of each Saturday and Sunday if I'll show up to work. So well, screw that.

Anyway, I took some shortcuts (approved it with my boss first) and fixed the absolutely essential stuff which would prevent the factory from making the actual parts. The project is done on Monday, I hand it off for the signing, however the quality control folks write me loads of pages with comments about the non-essential stuff (using - instead of —; using x (a letter) instead of × (a multiplication sign), and so on). At this point I'm nearly flipping out. I go to my boss. He says if it's in the standards, we've got to fix it. I warn him it'll take at least a day, most probably even two to fix all the little faults that weren't even mine to begin with. He gives me a green light. Okay. I finish it by Wednesday morning and the project is officially signed yesterday. I go home and grab a beer at the little shop near the train station.

This morning I'm given another project for the same helicopter, it's the whole fucking cargo floor assembly. The previous project was basically one frame (basically part of the fuselage carcass) and it would've taken me a week to do properly. This one with all the parts and minor assembly parts (including the frame I finished) would take me a fucking couple of months. It took me 2 hours to load it on my working PC which is not too shabby. The deadline? Tomorrow. This fucking Friday.

Obviously I raise some strong objections to this which are rebuked with "hey, just line up the crucial, critical stuff and skip the rest. We'll fix it in the next revision". Problem is, it's already revision E (fifth version basically, starting with A) and judging by how fucked up the whole assembly is (rivets are totally fucked up, the parts cut into each other, there are no fucking dimensions whatsoever, literally zero) I can venture a guess that "we'll fix it in the next revision" is a motto for this particular assembly. Another problem is, I hate doing a half-assed job, because it'll be my name on it and the factory will call me about that shit. Another problem is, even if I only do the crucial stuff and skip the rest, it would still take me at least a week or two. Combine this with the fact I'm not working overtime anymore, you get the result. I began to put some dimensions in but the scale of the project is just enormous. I gathered my things and walked out at 4 PM when my working day was over. I don't know what kind of half-assed shit we'll be sending out to the production facility tomorrow if at all, but it's honestly not my problem.

Our company was already a shitshow post-COVID (there's an emergency with the deadlines every week and we're almost always "strongly encouraged" to work overtime), but this takes it to a new fucking level. Come Saturday, I'm heading for a run in the morning, then I'm watching Tenet in the cinema, and then I'm updating my resume and searching for another job.

I couldn't find the work related gripes thread from the first search and that also pissed me off so I'll just post here.

[Cool Chris]

*makes a mental note to never get into a helicopter from Evermind's company.

[Evermind]

*makes a mental note to never get into a helicopter from Evermind's company.

Absolutely. Would never fly on them myself. Stands to reason our only customers are other third world countries.

[Dream Team]

Years ago on this forum I said that the continual assassination of morals could only end up in allowing sex with children, it had nowhere lower to go. Well here’s the first step, in California a 24 yr old can now have sex with a 14 yr old and not be registered as a sex offender.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Fortunately, that seems to be misinformation from (shocking) QAnon people.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/

All the bill does is eliminate disparity between sentencing based on sexual orientation. Our morals are safe, for now at least.

[Stadler]

Fortunately, that seems to be misinformation from (shocking) QAnon people.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/

All the bill does is eliminate disparity between sentencing based on sexual orientation. Our morals are safe, for now at least.

Well, it's debatable. That's another one of those laws that actually DON'T discriminate, but seem like they do, so they have to be changed.   Before the law, if I was a 24 year old male, and I got a beaner from a 16 year old - boy or girl - I had to register to be a sex offender.    Regardless.  I wasn't treated any differently if I was gay or straight.  I suppose the idea is that the law has to make subjective equivalencies between what a "normal" couple would do, which is in effect legislating morals.  (If I was a straight male in a relationship that practiced abstinence, I was subject to the same restrictions; no one seemed too bothered by that).   Now they just made it so that the judge could at his/her discretion require me to register as a sex offender instead of mandating it.  There was no inequity there.

And none of that is necessarily objection to the bill itself; I don't think it's a big deal unless the judges start refusing to grant sex offender status when there's a clear victim.  I just sort of half-heartedly object to the description of this as some great stride toward 'equity'.   

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Well, I'll admit I haven't read the bill, because I haven't reached the requisite level of self-loathing needed to inflict that kind of thing on myself, but from the article:

Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge.

To me it sounds like same-sex encounters (encounters? is that the right word?) previously automatically triggered the sex offender registration, whereas opposite-sex ones didn't, and the judge could make the decision. Now the judge can make the decision in either case. Am I misreading this?

[Ben_Jamin]

It's to protect Young Gay Couples in love that stay together. If one turns 18, and the next day for some reason, got caught doing the nasty,  they won't be automatically registered on the Sex Offenders list. While a Straight couple with one that turned 18, and gets caught, doesn't automatically get registered.

It's now up to the judge to determine, as they do a heterosexual couple.

It's the fact it states 14-24 is the range. So technically if a 14 year old consents, it's legal.

So now, it leaves it up to the morality of the judges.

[Stadler]

Well, I'll admit I haven't read the bill, because I haven't reached the requisite level of self-loathing needed to inflict that kind of thing on myself, but from the article:

Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge.

To me it sounds like same-sex encounters (encounters? is that the right word?) previously automatically triggered the sex offender registration, whereas opposite-sex ones didn't, and the judge could make the decision. Now the judge can make the decision in either case. Am I misreading this?

I believe you are.  It wasn't at all based on "same sex" or "opposite sex".   Unless I misread it - which is entirely possible, as I generally should know better to trust reporters to give the full picture when discussing these interpretations - it was based on the act itself, regardless of who was performing/engaging in it.   So, if you put penis into vagina, the judge had an option to require sex offender registration.  If it was oral/anal contact, the judge didn't.   The sexual preference of the offenders was not a question for the court.  This distinction the advocates are relying on revolves around the concept that "for a homosexual couple, that first option wasn't open to them".   That may be true, depending how you define "option", but as I noted, if you are a heterosexual couple engaged in abstinence, it wasn't open to you either.   Or if you're just one of those people that likes a little spice.  Or if you're one of those people that feel "it's not sex if it's in the butt" to claim virginity status. 

(And before the argument that "the number of people that abstain is virtually none, I give you this:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/  Depending on age, the number of people that practice abstinence is anywhere from 5% to 19%.  If you figure that the estimated percentage of the population that is homosexual is about 4.5%, we're in the same ballpark.)

[Stadler]

It's to protect Young Gay Couples in love that stay together. If one turns 18, and the next day for some reason, got caught doing the nasty,  they won't be automatically registered on the Sex Offenders list. While a Straight couple with one that turned 18, and gets caught, doesn't automatically get registered.

It's now up to the judge to determine, as they do a heterosexual couple.

It's the fact it states 14-24 is the range. So technically if a 14 year old consents, it's legal.

So now, it leaves it up to the morality of the judges.

But what do you mean by "doing the nasty"?  That's the point here.  When the offender goes up to the judge - and it's only the older of the two, not both - the judge doesn't ask "WHO did you do it with?", they ask "WHAT did you do, and how old were they?"     If I (straight), or Jim J Bullock (I believe him to be openly homosexual), or Kristen Stewart (I believe her to be openly bisexual) go up there, if the act wasn't peen-vag sex, and the other person is of a certain age, BAM! they get status.  The question need not arise "what sexual orientation are you?".    It's not the morality of the judges at issue here, it's the morality of the voting bloc, because the changes seem to be driven by the idea that "whatever two people do is normal".  But we're not talking about two CONSENTING people, because it's presumably addressing the issue of age inequality.   

Think about it this way:   by this change in the law, a priest that buggers an alter boy of a certain age is no longer subjected to mandatory sex offender status.   

[Ben_Jamin]

It's to protect Young Gay Couples in love that stay together. If one turns 18, and the next day for some reason, got caught doing the nasty,  they won't be automatically registered on the Sex Offenders list. While a Straight couple with one that turned 18, and gets caught, doesn't automatically get registered.

It's now up to the judge to determine, as they do a heterosexual couple.

It's the fact it states 14-24 is the range. So technically if a 14 year old consents, it's legal.

So now, it leaves it up to the morality of the judges.

But what do you mean by "doing the nasty"?  That's the point here.  When the offender goes up to the judge - and it's only the older of the two, not both - the judge doesn't ask "WHO did you do it with?", they ask "WHAT did you do, and how old were they?"     If I (straight), or Jim J Bullock (I believe him to be openly homosexual), or Kristen Stewart (I believe her to be openly bisexual) go up there, if the act wasn't peen-vag sex, and the other person is of a certain age, BAM! they get status.  The question need not arise "what sexual orientation are you?".    It's not the morality of the judges at issue here, it's the morality of the voting bloc, because the changes seem to be driven by the idea that "whatever two people do is normal".  But we're not talking about two CONSENTING people, because it's presumably addressing the issue of age inequality.   

Think about it this way:   by this change in the law, a priest that buggers an alter boy of a certain age is no longer subjected to mandatory sex offender status.

I mean, sex. But in this case of the Homosexual couple, it's Anal or Oral, it's not homosexual if it involves a penis and a vag.

I agree with your point with the Priest and Alter Boy. That's the crazy part about this.

[Stadler]

It's to protect Young Gay Couples in love that stay together. If one turns 18, and the next day for some reason, got caught doing the nasty,  they won't be automatically registered on the Sex Offenders list. While a Straight couple with one that turned 18, and gets caught, doesn't automatically get registered.

It's now up to the judge to determine, as they do a heterosexual couple.

It's the fact it states 14-24 is the range. So technically if a 14 year old consents, it's legal.

So now, it leaves it up to the morality of the judges.

But what do you mean by "doing the nasty"?  That's the point here.  When the offender goes up to the judge - and it's only the older of the two, not both - the judge doesn't ask "WHO did you do it with?", they ask "WHAT did you do, and how old were they?"     If I (straight), or Jim J Bullock (I believe him to be openly homosexual), or Kristen Stewart (I believe her to be openly bisexual) go up there, if the act wasn't peen-vag sex, and the other person is of a certain age, BAM! they get status.  The question need not arise "what sexual orientation are you?".    It's not the morality of the judges at issue here, it's the morality of the voting bloc, because the changes seem to be driven by the idea that "whatever two people do is normal".  But we're not talking about two CONSENTING people, because it's presumably addressing the issue of age inequality.   

Think about it this way:   by this change in the law, a priest that buggers an alter boy of a certain age is no longer subjected to mandatory sex offender status.

I mean, sex. But in this case of the Homosexual couple, it's Anal or Oral, it's not homosexual if it involves a penis and a vag.

I agree with your point with the Priest and Alter Boy. That's the crazy part about this.

Okay, but it doesn't work the other way.  Just because it's oral or anal doesn't make it homosexual.  They're punishing the ACT not the ACTOR.   I do not for a second believe that being homosexual is a choice - it's not; no more than I have a choice in what I find attractive in a woman - but how I express my sexuality IS a choice.  I can see problems in a 24yo - 17 yo relationship regardless of the orientation of the participants.   (And don't forget; I actually am in FAVOR of the change myself; I think any time you give the judges a chance to be flexible and adjust to the circumstances, it's for the better provided they act in good faith.  I just object to the very specific, and very political, arguments made to effect the change.)

[Ben_Jamin]

It's to protect Young Gay Couples in love that stay together. If one turns 18, and the next day for some reason, got caught doing the nasty,  they won't be automatically registered on the Sex Offenders list. While a Straight couple with one that turned 18, and gets caught, doesn't automatically get registered.

It's now up to the judge to determine, as they do a heterosexual couple.

It's the fact it states 14-24 is the range. So technically if a 14 year old consents, it's legal.

So now, it leaves it up to the morality of the judges.

But what do you mean by "doing the nasty"?  That's the point here.  When the offender goes up to the judge - and it's only the older of the two, not both - the judge doesn't ask "WHO did you do it with?", they ask "WHAT did you do, and how old were they?"     If I (straight), or Jim J Bullock (I believe him to be openly homosexual), or Kristen Stewart (I believe her to be openly bisexual) go up there, if the act wasn't peen-vag sex, and the other person is of a certain age, BAM! they get status.  The question need not arise "what sexual orientation are you?".    It's not the morality of the judges at issue here, it's the morality of the voting bloc, because the changes seem to be driven by the idea that "whatever two people do is normal".  But we're not talking about two CONSENTING people, because it's presumably addressing the issue of age inequality.   

Think about it this way:   by this change in the law, a priest that buggers an alter boy of a certain age is no longer subjected to mandatory sex offender status.

I mean, sex. But in this case of the Homosexual couple, it's Anal or Oral, it's not homosexual if it involves a penis and a vag.

I agree with your point with the Priest and Alter Boy. That's the crazy part about this.

Okay, but it doesn't work the other way.  Just because it's oral or anal doesn't make it homosexual.  They're punishing the ACT not the ACTOR.   I do not for a second believe that being homosexual is a choice - it's not; no more than I have a choice in what I find attractive in a woman - but how I express my sexuality IS a choice.  I can see problems in a 24yo - 17 yo relationship regardless of the orientation of the participants.   (And don't forget; I actually am in FAVOR of the change myself; I think any time you give the judges a chance to be flexible and adjust to the circumstances, it's for the better provided they act in good faith.  I just object to the very specific, and very political, arguments made to effect the change.)

Okay. I hear you though and am the same way about the change.