memfree

I read the other posts about your relationship with the local birds and now I'm really thinking it is a kid saying, "Mom won't feed me anymore, but she said you'd do it. I CAN'T!!! Look! I'm TRYING and it doesn't WORK!"

I agree with others here. It wanted your attention, probably for help -- either for a 'friend' or for itself. Could it have been a recently fledged juvenile wanting food? It may have seen mom looking for the grass and getting food from that activity, but unable to master the art.

Did you look for a nest or another bird in the original shrub? It could have been trying to keep you from finding an injured friend (killdeer fake wing injuries to lure you away from their nests).

Was it close enough that you can go back with some treats and a camera? I'd do that.

Not a family saying, but my grandad used this joke soooo often:

Q: What's the difference between a snake in the grass and a goose?

A: A snake in the grass is an asp in the grass, but a grasp in the ass is a goose!

My folks liked to purposefully mix metaphors, so instead of saying "The worm has turned", they'd say, "The shoe has turned" and "The worm is on the other foot".

I'm sure there's an origin somewhere, but since I don't know it, the call-out for doing something particularly dumb was, "Why don't you just ram your face into my fist?" (suggesting your stupidity was impressive, but not worth the actual bother of 'punishing' you for it, especially given you were probably stupid enough to punish yourself).

I blame the defunding of reliable curators. The good gets lost in the torrent of mediocre content. This isn't just music, but videos, news, art, and so on. Most anything that both craftsmen and amateurs can produce is now easily accessible to everyone everywhere. In addition to the old method of producing albums where the band had to go to some location and work on it as a regular job, and with the label sending in extra musicians, equipment, professionals and such, there used to be trusted critics.

Historically, we had a short list of vetted reviewers who could point us towards the best stuff without the need to wade through the rest. Even if it turned out that your aesthetics did not match that of a given critic, you could probably see why such critics held their opinions and could quickly locate a critic whose tastes did align with yours. Now we have a billion fake review sites run by the companies and/or families of those being reviewed. They are not trustworthy. A person is left to try everything on their own and we often run out of time looking for 'good' and settle on 'good enough'.

No. You plead the 5th once you are in court. This says that when Nixon wanted the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate break-in, we couldn't ask why because the prez is supposed to talk to the FBI and we can't question his motives. It says that when Trump asked Pence to hold the vote and bring in fake electors, it was official communication and therefore legal -- because we can't ask why. It says that when Trump wanted false charges of fraud brought up for elections, saying his lawyers would figure out the reasons later, that was OK because he's officially supposed to investigate fraud. Prior to this, any potential overlap between the Office of President and potential Candidate for Presidency (and/or candidate for future jail term) could be investigated as if it was not Presidential until there was a solid defense as to why it was official. The ruling turns that on its head and says prosecution must first find proof that actions were unofficial -- and do so without the ability to ask about motivations -- before filing charges. We want the official/unofficial decision to be made with the weight of context and done in court rather than putting prosecutors in the position of 'illegally' investigating a President before they can figure out what actually went down.

This looks new to me. It becomes hard for prosecutors to prove anything when we can't ask about motives and the witnesses are 'privileged advisors'. From the officical court opinion -- note it is in paper-format with hyphens. (page 18: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf):

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.”

(page 31)

The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

Not everywhere, but lots of county/state health clinics will vaccinate you for lots of things -- just because they feel it is in their self-interest to keep the locals free from spreadable diseases where they can.

Hrm. No one has mentioned the decline of middle class wages.

I remember in the ... late 70s/early 80s my mother would drag us to the mall nearly every weekend. She was there to buy clothes. She always wanted something new and she wanted to try on at least a dozen items before buying one or two. I was thrilled when I was old enough to go off to the record store and/or hobby store while she did that. Earlier, I begged to go the the toy store, but was typically refused. Later, I was at the book store getting paperback scifi.

I don't think people have as much disposable income as they did then. I don't know many people who can buy as much frivolous stuff as my folks used to. I guess I could technically buy stuff all the time, but I want to save fore retirement. My folks had pensions. I have to put it away myself.

Sadly, the effect of not voting for one of the 2 candidates is to intensify the power of the most extreme views. Say 100 people can vote. 25 on each side are going to vote for their party no matter what. 20 want something crazy in one direction and 20 in the other direction, and both sides are likely to protest and/or not vote if their guy doesn't pander to them. That leaves 10 persuadable people -- mostly people who are busy with other stuff and not paying attention to the minutia of various policies and the likely after effects they will cause.

What is a candidate to do? They pander to the crazies. They can hardly bother to assuage the persuadables because those folks aren't paying attention anyway. They have to go after the people who might bail if they aren't appeased. I hate the system, but there it is.

I have my TV, sound system, and computer all in my living room. They all use the same amplifier and speakers. Would that work for your situation?

I used to visit communities like you did, then I took an arrow in the knee.

But no, seriously, if you don't like the how people are talking, don't bother going there. I don't know people who use Steam's community hubs for actual community. I see them getting used for info/joke sharing about their given games, but not for social bonding. Personally, I like the guides. Sometimes I search the discussions for a piece of information on an issue that I'm hoping someone else has already encountered and worked around. That's about it.

That said, I generally don't mind that people make memes. If it makes them happy, then good for them! If other people get a chuckle, that's even better. For me -- and like my opening line -- any amusement quickly turns to eye rolls as the same things get repeated over and over and were never very funny from the start.

I think it is getting downvoted because most things you buy (like toasters and shoes) can be used once you buy them. Nothing keeps you from continuing to use them after purchase. Even with computers, you agree to the OS license on purchase/install, and then you get to keep using it. At least historically, if a new update has a new license, you could refuse the upgrade and keep using the old version. For recurring payment items like monthly subscriptions, it makes sense that you can't keep the original terms, but for one-time purchases, you should not have to change what you bought unless they are willing to take it back for a full refund.