Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    loki2002

    + friends - friends
    355,340 link karma
    287,179 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] What's your creepiest "glitch in the matrix" or unexplainable thing that's ever happened to you? loki2002 1 points ago in AskReddit

    Sleep giggler? I didn't even know that was a thing.

    Getting up to pee in the middle of the night and passing your toddler's room when you hear your child's giggling cutting through the night's silence. Low at first but getting louder and more fervent with every second. You throw open the door expexting to catch them awake and playing with a toy only to find them snuggled in their blankets fast asleep basked in the glow of their SpongeBob night light. You watch them breath for a few moments while you catch your own breath. As you about their door completely closed the giggling starts again.

    [–] What's your creepiest "glitch in the matrix" or unexplainable thing that's ever happened to you? loki2002 13 points ago in AskReddit

    There's nothing more beautiful than the sound of a baby's laughter. Unless it's 2AM and you remember you don't have kids.

    [–] What's your creepiest "glitch in the matrix" or unexplainable thing that's ever happened to you? loki2002 9 points ago in AskReddit

    A reboot is defined as a complete rebranding of a specific title or IP.

    A remake is defined as a complete retelling of the same story and characters that a studio buys the rights to.

    [–] This cop's takedown loki2002 1 points ago in nextfuckinglevel

    Speed wasn't a documentary.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 1 points ago * (lasted edited 3 hours ago) in news

    They didn't say "somewhat under control", they said under control.

    What you say doesn't undercut what I've said. They had an emergency and specifically said it was under control, not critical, and they didn't need to dump fuel. Then they, without informing the tower, dumped fuel at an unsafe altitude over a population center.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 2 points ago in news

    Double negatives happen in the same sentence or phrase not from two different people talking.

    In basic English this is the pilot saying they do not need to hold or dump fuel.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 2 points ago in news

    I mean, the pilot didn't think it was an emergency:

    Pilot: We're going to go ahead ... We've got it back under control ... We're not critical.

    Controller: OK, so you don't need to hold or dump fuel or anything like that?

    Pilot: Ah, negative.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 1 points ago in news

    According to the recording you're wrong.

    Pilot: We're going to go ahead ... We've got it back under control ... We're not critical.

    Controller: OK, so you don't need to hold or dump fuel or anything like that?

    Pilot: Ah, negative.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 2 points ago in news

    According to the recording you're wrong.

    Pilot: We're going to go ahead ... We've got it back under control ... We're not critical.

    Controller: OK, so you don't need to hold or dump fuel or anything like that?

    Pilot: Ah, negative.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 1 points ago in news

    Except they did not than just not inform ATC, they specifically made definitive statements that the dumping was not needed and then did it anyway.

    [–] Los Angeles teachers sue Delta after jet fuel dump over schools, playgrounds loki2002 1 points ago in news

    Then why did they tell the tower they didn't need to dump? Why just randomly do it instead of finding a safer spot? They were irresponsible and should pay.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    There is no privacy to violate of the other students. Being in the bus is not a private act.

    If the school can't afford it then they shouldn't be doing it. It is unreasonable and borderline criminal to charge extortion amounts of money to a parent to see a video of an assault on their child.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    The police are unnecessary for this process is what I'm saying. The school covering they're ass for liability isn't sufficient reason to withhold the video. Enjoy that boot taste.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    It didn't need to be edited to show it to her. And she shouldn't have to bear that cost for a public school she say partially finds.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    No, they charged extortion rates to see the video. That's not "letting" her.

    [–] moving Joan from the ICU to the burn ward loki2002 2 points ago in MurderedByWords

    It is not easy to just walk away if you're married. You saying that just shows you don't know how divorce works.

    You said that I made a definitive statement which I did not.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago * (lasted edited 7 hours ago) in assholedesign

    A parent of a student at the school isn't "the public". An assault carried out in their property is all the legal reason they need. No parent would have a case against the school of they didn't blur they're kids face because of the SCOTUS ruling.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    The legal reason is the assault. Police don't need to be involved for the school to investigate and allow viewing of the video by interested parties. All your doing is locking the school's boot while they do nothing but try and shield themselves from liability.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    Which was unnecessary since there is no expectation privacy on a school bus or in school according SCOTUS as another commenting pointed out. Plus, no policy would require blurring faces. They did that to roadblock the mother and cover their own asses.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    An assault on a child is that legal reason. Trying to hide behind anything to not release that to interested parties is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

    There is no privacy expectation on the school bus or in the school so blurring faces wouldn't be required.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    Parent of a student at the school isn't "the public".

    [–] moving Joan from the ICU to the burn ward loki2002 -4 points ago * (lasted edited 7 hours ago) in MurderedByWords

    Read what I wrote again. I said "one could argue" not that it did.

    Being married objectively does makes it harder to split with your partner than simply being together. If you're not married you can just leave with no obligation or outstanding commitment for the most part. You can't do that when you're married.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    Not really, no. And no privacy policy requires that.

    [–] why bullies had to be lucky? loki2002 1 points ago in assholedesign

    Not one that requires hiding the faces of kids there parent sees literally everyday.