Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


@~thehung last won the day on January 9

@~thehung had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

448 Overlord

About @~thehung

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

13,322 profile views
  1. @~thehung

    So - who's around these days?

    holy. shit. its kimmo! back from the grave
  2. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    well, i looked it the etymology once and via something like middle english and/or french and a silent 'l' or somesuch there is a very strong case for their way being the most "authentic". still sucks though, even if i am the type to argue with cafe staff over my insistence there's a hard 'c' in bruschetta.
  3. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    custom search presets are cool. but i bet it cant do what i most want — a way to filter out americans from specific video results :) goddamnit! every time i hear a yank say "solder" a part of me dies. i'm never prepared for it. i never adapt to it. i just want to smash things. they need their lips soddered shut!
  4. @~thehung

    What's on your mind?

    i'm about as paranoid as anyone, but even i trust security tokens. ie. two-factor with the aid of an air gapped physical device as opposed to the SMS code variety, which is orders of magnitude less secure.
  5. @~thehung


    fair enough. if anything though, my own squeamishness over the utter finality of such a decision makes me no less compelled to make light of it! i wish you the best of luck. i do not envy any adult wanting/needing to seriously consider it AT ALL.
  6. @~thehung


    speaking of DIY body modification. this one time, during a particularly bad bout of foreskin envy, i tried fashioning for myself a replacement of sorts out of the skin from a hock — ie. the lower part (distal, for those in the know) of a pigs leg often used in pea soup. i opted for un-smoked, because i am not a fucking idiot. but to anyone reading this and thinking hey thats a great idea, i say think again. no, seriously. do not try this. at the very least, check with your Rabbi first. it didnt work well at all. i know they say its only a bad craftsman that blames his tools, and maybe thats also true of amateur surgeons, but i can tell you, in retrospect, knitting needles = bad choice. in my defence, it was all i had available. the crippling pain wasnt even the worst of it: in the end, the tissue rejected me. oh well, ...it seemed like a good idea at the time.
  7. @~thehung


    this reminds me of the movie, Hannibal, which i hated but for one singular moment that cracked me up. Gary Oldman's horribly disfigured character is recalling the story of how after some playful canoodling together Dr Lecter handed him a piece of broken mirror and suggested he try peeling his face off and feeding it to the dogs. after a pause, he adds, "...It seemed like a good idea at the time." i doubt youre as impressionable as that poor guy, but since i am unsure if its wise to make a similar suggestion re your old fella, i will opt to hedge my bets, as should you. okay, so, you know how sometimes a man will shave off only half of his beard and moustache? like, one side fully hairy and one side clean shaven? well, why dont you take a piece of broken mirror and ... :D
  8. @~thehung


    well, i'd guess the primary reason is a clear consensus that it has always had less than zero medical benefit, which precludes the specious arguments that perpetuate male circumcision. and, it depends which cultural group is having the discussion... the estimated number of living females who've undergone FGM is 200,000,000. in other words, around 5%. yes, 1 out of 20
  9. @~thehung


    i am wary of arguing this point not only because its close to you personally but also because i am sure i dont have all the information (and that may even be somewhat true for you). i can only respond in a generic way. but that disclaimer aside, i really have to insist that the picture you paint still sounds exactly like adults weighing the lifelong disfigurement of a baby against their own transient inconvenience. as for the father's issues, i confess to having some difficulty believing there werent alternate actions that could have been taken — from prevention, to early intervention, to better maintenance, all with varying (albeit diminishing) degrees of feasibility. more to the point, though, there were many choices along the way, choices that he made for himself with the prerogative of an adult's volition, before he opted for the last resort - invasive, irreparably destructive, surgery. for this baby, though, no such choices. instead, its straight to the last resort for him, 'just in case'. just in case not doing it will be less convenient, and more "risky". but FUD propped up by medical factors of tangential relevance is still FUD. circumcision lowers your risk factor for some things whilst raising the certainty that you will be robbed of a feature of anatomy that is your natural birthright to 100%. an enforced birth defect right here and now wagered against a litany of future maybes. the two dont even compare. the child has some of his mother's DNA for one. he is biologically different. he hopefully has a long lifetime ahead of him that may involve vastly different life circumstances. what of undertaking better precautions, or changing jobs, or moving house, or dare i say it, not having the baby at all if they couldnt see their way past hacking chunks off it fresh from the birth canal? its a flippant excuse made palatable by a show of beard-stroking concern. and why are equivocations like this so easy? because of the backdrop — an epidemic of passive tolerance for this act of irreversible violence to newborns. and despite your personal preference against circumcision, i am resolutely focusing on this because it is precisely what needs to change: barely critical acceptance that violating the sanctity of a baby's body in this way is even a matter of preference when its not absolutely 100% medically necessary. circumcision is a drastic thing. the fact its so hard for so most of us to relate to it this way is testament to how hard it is to tear ourselves away from the grip of long established norms. this is a blindness, a cognitive dissonance that has befallen generations of otherwise morally upright, smart, and sensible people. monkeying around with baby genitals is something human beings do, isnt it? its kind of normal, right? its always been an option on the menu, hasnt it? its so deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition that too many of us fail to see it for what it is. this needs to change. there needs to be push back. but thats herd animals for you. when it comes to smoking or drinking during pregnancy we went from ubiquitous ignorance, to 'you probably shouldn't do that, but it's your choice', to 'don't fucking do it' — in the last 50 years or so. that shit will get you ostracised from your circle of friends now, and rightly so. evidently we still have a way to go as far as ringbarking defenceless baby's dicks on a whim goes. incredibly, thats less of a faux pas. p.s. since i am going pretty hard on this, i just want to clarify that ive never ostracised my parents over this and of course make no serious suggestion that you should do anything of the sort to members of your family either. this is just an impassioned appeal for you to consider recalibrating your idea of what constitutes a "justified" circumcision.
  10. @~thehung

    terrorism and the law

    youre conflating two different things. authoritarian feature creep is one thing, whilst the need to have specific legislative responses to specific crimes is quite another. one thing thats apparent right away is that terrorism entails a component of extortion. usually not the financial kind, but however you term this component, its clear that the motive for terrorism often includes mass murder and/or the threat of it as a means to an end, rather than it being an end in itself, hence the nature of the crime is very different. and that is just one additional aspect which doesnt begin to cover the full scope of transgressions. it is unreasonable to view the Crimes Act is a fully complete recipe book from which an appropriate response can be cooked up from 3 count of this, 2 counts of that, and so on. thats why it has been amended over time.
  11. @~thehung

    New free DOOM megawad by John Romero - SIGIL

    fuck yeah! i didnt even know about ep 4. i will definitely have to play this, but i am more excited by the fact it exists. as much as i played the original to death, the last time i revisited it there were whole areas i had forgotten so completely it felt new enough to me again anyway. "requires players own the original 1993 registered version of DOOM® in order to play" DAFUQ?
  12. @~thehung


    a vanishingly small number of genuine medical exceptions aside, if the "solution" to a problem is mutilating a newborn human child, then something is very, very, wrong. species dont evolve "optional extras". the level of ignorance/stupidity necessary to believe otherwise, astounds, revolts, and angers me to my core. i would add, '— especially with regard to specific features of the very organs of reproduction, whose natural functioning is so entwined with lifelong sexual and emotional health' ... but i shouldnt need to. cutting a piece off a baby (human or animal) you dont absolutely need to, is in and of itself deplorable. i have not, and will never, forgive my parents for the deliberate act of permanent disfigurement i suffered without the chance to withdraw my consent. the only small consolation i have is that they grew up in more retarded times. i won't countenance wiggle room on this issue. i have zero tolerance for handwringing notions of tacit permissability for 'some peoples' choices. in short, i categorically reject moral relativist arguments for child abuse. today, 'hygiene reasons' typically translates to it being more convenient than taking a handful of minutes out of each day to clean the boy thoroughly and teach him well. convenience is not a medical reason nor anything approaching a moral justification for the mutilation of a child. egregious, selfish, pig ignorant, and cruel.
  13. @~thehung

    The most special people

    ya, congrats to all! * *thats either a bro fist, or an indication i dont handle praise well. you decide!
  14. well there is nothing wrong with taking an idealistic long view. necessity is the mother of invention after all, and i trust the inevitability of ever more refined technological solutions. which is why i said "it may take these cars becoming mainstream" in my original post. see stadl's post for a different but complimentary take. the disconnect here, is whether or not we focus on the difficult realities of the protracted interim, already in full swing.
  15. you seem to be exhibiting some of the overly-reductive hubris that is at issue here. your assumptions about confidence speed being a magical catch-all are faulty. the accuracy of the systems used to define and measure the required level of "confidence" are prone to potential failure. in the Uber case i posted above, Uber had willfully disengaged the Volvo’s factory settings for automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance. and evidently this Tesla car was operating with a suspect level of confidence when it killed its occupant: A diagram from the police report about the Tesla crash shows how the vehicle in self-driving mode (V02) struck a tractor-trailer (V01) as it was turning left. link according to Tesla "neither autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor-trailer against a brightly lit sky". we will never know for sure if the same human, or a 'reasonable person', would have spotted the trailer were they not chaperoning a robot at the time. this incident likely exposed shortfalls in the sensor system. or perhaps those systems were operating faultlessly at levels of acuity far beyond human capability. in either case, though, it would still be arguable that the driving speed was overly confident. acceptable risk is not something that is trivial to codify. when you factor out incompetence, we humans routinely exceed our personal confidence speed. if we did not, traffic would grind to a crawl. a cyclist flying out of some bushes is one thing, while a 100km/h red-light runner at an intersection with poor visibility on the approach is quite another. to a large extent we take on acceptable risks we define for ourselves as individuals. if driverless cars are to function amongst human drivers, there is a practical need for them to drive at speeds not optimally safe — by design. the designers must quantify how unsafe is safe enough. there will always be eventualities that neither man nor machine can anticipate or prevent. but if the above incident was indeed preventable, its a shame you werent consulted beforehand. you would have said "It's simple, Elon, just set the confidence speed correctly and it's all good man", collected your fee, and that man would still be alive today.