Scrolling by at a glance I thought it said something else and I was ready to be very offended.

I don’t think I’d agree that the remarkable is less “for those who write” than the Supernote.

I switched from my Nomad to the Paper Pro simply because the Nomad was too small for the notes that I write and Supernote wasn’t selling something comparable.

I think they have different priorities maybe and supernotes business model is way better, but they’re both good for writing.

Overall it is a fantastic device, good enough that I use it despite hating their stupid subscription model. I take work notes in it all day long and it has proven to be excellent for that.

I also use it to read for a book club I run, and the PDF markup tools are pretty nice. Color highlights are cool and they will stick to the text of the pdf to be perfectly straight which makes me happy.

I have a Supernote Manta coming this week though which may replace it. The Supernote pen is just way better.

I returned my pen and kept just the reader after a week because the writing experience was overall terrible.

For context: I also own a Supernote Nomad and Remarkable Paper Pro. These devices both highlight how unacceptably bad the Kobo device is.

If you really want an ereader for comics the paper pro is a more appropriate form factor, though the warnings above about limited color range and saturation still apply.

The irony of choosing the most pedantic way of saying that they’re not pedantic is pretty amusing though.

The problem with being like… super pedantic about definitions, is that you often miss the forest for the trees.

Illegal or not, seems pretty obvious to me that people saying illegal in this thread and others probably mean “unethically”… which is pretty clearly true.

(God I hope the /s isn’t necessary)

I guess I don’t understand the mastodon/twitter style feed, I’ve always found that I couldn’t seem to get a feed interesting enough to come back to.

The teaser at the end of the first game was such a delightful little add on to the satisfaction of beating the nameless asshole.

GOP: “We only want to deport the illegals, if they want to be here they should do it legally”

Immigrants: “ok, we’ll come on this program specifically designed to allow a legal pathway to citizenship”

GOP: “No not like that!”

No they’re Mennonite, I’m pretty sure they worship a zombie.

It’s totally legal because workers have surprisingly few rights in the US today. You can still find good companies that will treat you with dignity but it’s not because they’re required to.

SCOTUS declaring full immunity for anything done as an official presidential act is probably why this term feels less hollow; last time around he had to be careful not to end up in prison, this time he has nothing to fear.

Yeeeeesssss background jobs! I think I can finally move nearly full time to nu now.

TNG 2x9: The Measure of a Man has been my favorite for many years.

Interpretation must flow from context.

Here, the context is that signs affirming that everyone is welcome in the classroom are being forcibly removed by administrators. The article from the original post is clearly in support of those signs staying up and appalled that a teacher is being threatened with their livelihood if they remain.

In that context the person I replied to commented that while uniformity is nice and all, that we are over sheltering our kids and not preparing them for the real world.

So, in context it seems pretty clear to me that this is an affirmation that the signs coming down is fine or good because we will be teaching children that when they exit school they’re going to have hard lives they need to be “toughened up” for.

I take great issue with this.

The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.

Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.

I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.

If you don’t see a problem with the sign being up then I’m not sure why you needed to offer a counterpoint that we’re “over sheltering” children. Taking the time to write out a rebuttal sure would seem to indicate that you think the signs coming down are a good thing.

I strongly disagree with you.

Aside from the fact that teaching children to be inclusive and accepting is the path to these things being normal in the future, “well you have to learn to be offended” is the shield of the bully. It’s what people who want to be assholes say to protect their assholery.

But you know what, if someone needs to learn to be offended then maybe it’s the bigots and bullies that need to learn that inclusive language is here to stay and to just deal with it.

Wut? ST is a cult classic.