I personally prefer spritzing my face with a faucet instead of a toilet.
This story reminds me of the movie "Inside Man" [1], where a bank robber hides with the loot behind a fake wall in the bank, until the police investigation is done, and he can just walk out.
I think the 'I lost focus' is very accurate and describes a lot on his life. At least he didn't kill anyone. I hope he finds the peace he needs.
Aren't freezers designed to be very easy to get out of from the inside? Is there something I'm missing about confining people in a freezer? Maybe it blocks cell reception or he's blocking the doors
That said most freezers by law have an internal quick release that should work even if there's a padlock through the secure holes on the outside latch.
It's probable he has barricaded the door with something heavy and told the people inside that the first one out the door will be shot dead.
Quora suggested jamming the extraction fans to stop the freezer working and potentially triggering a service alarm should the quick release not work:
https://www.quora.com/What-if-I-accidentally-ended-up-locked...
This was on the front page of reddit today.
> Over the course of seven months, the Roofman hit over 40 restaurants, mostly McDonald’s franchises, for a total score of $100,000. Armed with a gun and power tools, he drilled through the roof. Then, he would drop down from the ceiling, sometimes as far as 14 feet, and begin the holdup.
I would probably never use the term “ceiling cat” unprompted, but if there was ever a person to which the term could be applied, it’s this guy. Not in the spying sense you’re implying, but clearly acclimated to ceilings
If judges interpret the law so strictly, why don't we replace them by computers?
"Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person..."
Locking people in a walk-in is pretty clearly "confines".
For North Carolina's purpose: https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySec...
"Any person who shall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person, ... shall be guilty of kidnapping if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of:
(1) Holding such other person for a ransom or as a hostage or using such other person as a shield; or
(2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony; or"
So, confinement which facilitates the commision of a felony and fleeing thereafter.
Second: because we don't have human-equivalent AI, and if we did, why would you think that they would do better?
> They were soon dating, sharing dinners at Red Lobster
I'm not entirely convinced that dinners at Red Lobster are what "every girl wants".
https://slate.com/business/2013/12/red-lobster-s-bad-food-pr...
See https://slate.com/business/2013/12/red-lobster-s-bad-food-pr...
Bottomless.
Shrimp.
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Food/red-lobster-eyes-bankruptcy-...
I've come to find too, partners who prefer whatever instead of having very specific expectations for time spent together are more comfortable to be around.
While I haven't been to a Red Lobster since I was a kid, that was always a treat back then, and it was one of the nicest places my parents could afford to take us on occasion.
Why not? Have you become “disgustingly elitist”?
The scenario I responded to didn’t involve family meals with children.
My original comment was referring to nothing other than the fact that the food at Red Lobsters is pretty terrible. It’s not about price - there are plenty of cheap restaurants that serve good food.
See https://slate.com/business/2013/12/red-lobster-s-bad-food-pr...
Key hint to definition was: 'toilet sink' See also: Eau de toilette
assuming Wiktionary can be trusted on all of these
Honourable mention to the incomparable Scots language for "cludgie"!
Any why shouldn't each offense be punished? Each victim deserves justice, not just the first few.
Anyway, don't you think that 45 years of prison for locking up people for about an hour (when the police arrived) is ridiculous compared to e.g. the sentence for murder which is far less. It is literally ridiculous.
And yes, the average sentence for murder is ridiculously short; most if not all murderers should never be released. The only exceptions I can think of require pretty extreme mitigating circumstances, like Gary Plauche. On the other hand, a repeat offender murderer will almost certainly never get out. The justice system is rightly much harsher on people who do whatever they did more than once.
Justice should be about punishments proportionate to the crime, getting dangerous/likely-to-reoffend people out of society for a time, and hopefully eventually rehabilitation.
Justice shouldn't be about the victims. Victims should have no say or sway over a criminal's sentence. Certainly someone who has hurt more people likely deserves a worse sentence (if for no other reason than they're probably more likely to continue to hurt people otherwise), but that's not strictly "justice for the victims".
Of course, that's the (my) ideal... our actual justice systems rarely live up to it.
It's not like they're charging them with resisting arrest for every cop he ran from or something.
OK, now I get it that I misunderstood the comment! I thought that "powder room" was supposed to be a word in Europe.
Toilet and its variants - of course.
Thanks!
BTW for French it will be the plural "toilettes", the singular form means "the action of washing yourself"
Also where I grew up, we had a "baseball analogy" for dating, in which running the bases proceeds more or less as follows:
1st base - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_kTor63Ihw
2nd base - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHOo_b6Gn4c
3rd base - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-rB0pHI9fU
home run - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1niTEkP-6eo
So I would say (referring to the diving video!) that fingers in wet crevices and feeling around would be 3rd while sticking spears in and suddenly releasing tension would defo be a home run.
In countries that don't really have baseball as a sport that anyone plays, does the same pattern apply? Are there different analogies, perhaps involving "silly mid ons" or "brexit tackles"?
I remember reading someone saying literally "it's just not possible to find a good-looking girlfriend before graduating college". I was like, what? This statement offends the whole humanity, and also offends me as a man. And yeah, I care to explain why. It's just basically a more covert way of saying that "all women are, err, for the lack of better term, golddiggers, and all men want a partner who will offer them no more than sex". I sure get the evolutionary take on mate selection but even if one really understands it, one will know that the reality is much more complex that that.
As stated above, first dates at resturants, etc aren't for everybody.
> He was “funny, romantic, the most sensitive man I’ve ever met,” Wainscott later told the Charlotte Observer. “The guy that every girl would want.”
Then they started having dinners at Red Lobster - presumably that’s what she wanted, and a popular preference? Who cares if other people prefer free diving?
Sometimes you wanna get out asap.
So chain restaurants are really something that typically occur only in the same sorts of areas as big box stores, aiming at a similar demographic.
I'm > 60 and gone out on a lot of first dates over the decades, rarely to a resturant or a movie (I mean we have them here in W.Australia but of all the many ways to get to know a person these are not the best choices).
All dates have three elements: food, entertainment, and affection. A first date should have plenty of entertainment and only a hint of affection. At some point, the affection becomes the entertainment, but under no circumstances may the food be omitted.
> I'm not entirely convinced that dinners at Red Lobster are what "every girl wants".
I know we're not supposed to go for the ad hominem, but I'm honestly not sure that comment warrants anything better.
Exhibit A :)
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/in-b...
The original research assumed the case were randomly ordered, and so everyone should have an equal shot at parole—-but they weren’t! Instead, all the cases from one particular prison were heard together, with breaks usually occurring between prisons. Within a prison, cases were arranged by lawyer, with prisoners representing themselves going last. If people without professional representation fare worse (and they do), then…that’s the whole effect. PNAS published a “rebuttal” article where someone actually interviewed court staff who reported this, but it’s been cited like…70 times vs thousands for the original article.
There are other reasons to think the original result wasn’t true too. The “effect” didn’t occur when considering wall-time (i.e., judges were similarly severe at 9:30 and 11:30), only order (first vs last), but you’d expect hunger, blood sugar, etc to track time elapsed.
Sorry for the aside, but the fact that people still cite this drives me nuts.
(Don’t worry, I’m not offended)
But e.g Howard's mom going "Oh, Mr big shot with his Red Lobster": https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5edf85de-e15f-4507-8c70-f1e2a63...
(after rejecting Olive Garden, I think? I might misremember. Olive Garden is another chain I only know of from TV)
There are many such points in the world where there are no restaurants at all. If there's one restaurant, then it is the fanciest. If there are two or more restaurants, you can rank them. Without recourse to subjective comparisons, we might hypothesize that a restaurant with a higher average cost per main course is fancier than one with a lower cost.
Without actually doing the GIS searches, my contention is that there are quite a large number of points in the US where a Red Lobster can be considered the fanciest restaurant around.
Does a "fancy restaurant" require absolute uniqueness? How do you define a "fancy restaurant"?
Fancy restaurants create food with flavor, rather than trying to appeal to people with weak palates that can't handle a little garlic and rosemary.
All of this pushes prices up, but fancy restaurants aren't trying to compete on price.
As an example, Aqua has restaurants in New York, Miami, Dubai, London, and Hong Kong. Some of them are branded Aqua, but most are not. So while it's a "chain", it feels fancy, perhaps more so than justified. E.g. their London restaurants are perhaps more flashy / "tourist fancy" w/e.g. two restaurants in the Shard, than "actually" fancy. They're mostly pretty mid-range, maybe upper mid-range for London. I think that's about where you'll get to as a chain. To get above that, you get to the level where you expect the restaurant to at least tell you about their chef by name, whether or not they're actually famous enough for you to recognise it.
Why does becoming a chain automatically disqualify a place as being fancy?
I think people apply a lot of assumptions once the word "chain" has entered the chat. They assume they've entered a race to the bottom on costs to maximize profits, but there are plenty of chains that I would still consider on the fancy side. Fogo de Chao and Ruth's Chris, for example.
I've been in the US plenty of times, but I'm a burger guy, so I made sure I tried all burger chains and as many (indi) restaurants I could. But I've never been in a Red Lobster. I do understand though that lobster-eating can be messy - thus the bib.
I can also picture that cracking lobster 'body-parts' is not the most romantic setup.
The poor think they're fancy. Middle class think they're casual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrobranchiata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleocyemata
"True Shrimp" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caridea
TGI Friday's, sure.