Sounds like a bunch of good ideas. Have you considered proposing those to the people who can actually implement them?

Some of us are activists. It is our duty expose incompetence.

It is nobody’s duty to expose anything for the sake of exposing it. It is our duty to expose things for the sake of solving them. If you have a better solution, we’re ready to hear it.

The question is, why would have it covered up?

I don’t see anything being covered up. You have linked an official government website that tells you how to perform the test. Looks like you have found it. Doesn’t seem like much of a secret. Where else should they put it?

Of course the reason I was looking into how to test 911 is because I actually fucking need to test it

Then do what they tell you to do: contact them beforehand (borrow a phone from a neighbor or send them an email) and ask if they have free capacity for a test call and what you should do if you don’t know which 911 call center your VOIP setup will reach.

you asshole!

Reported.

Well, go ask the non-emergency line if it’s okay. That’s what is recommended. Looks like you have access to the internet. What keeps you from writing an email to your local police station and just asking what you should do? I can’t know where you live. I can only tell you that in my 38 years of life, these things have been solved by actually talking to people or trying things. Certainly not by complaining on the internet to people who can’t do anything about it and then not even suggesting a better solution.

Sorry, but you don’t seem like you want a solution. You want something to complain about.

You’re constructing an argument that’s so specific, you’re basically begging to be the victim.

If you a) have a device that can’t make regular calls b) have no way to contact a non-emergency number through a different device to ask if it’s okay to make a test call and c) absolutely need to test this right now, then you’re about one in a million. Just make that call, answer the “what’s your emergency?” question with “No emergency right now, I need to test that my device that can’t make regular calls will work in a real emergency. Sorry, I couldn’t reach your non-emergency number.” and it will be fine.

It’s only an illegit 911 call if you call them for fun or if you test so often it can no longer be considered necessary.

To be sure that your (possibly rather unusual) phone or connection will work. Maybe you have an automated home security system, an emergency call button or your own GSM antenna that gives you access in a very remote area. That’s totally legit and many emergency hotlines have scheduled times when you can do that. They make sure they have additional staff during those times so test calls don’t interrupt regular operations. If you need to do a test outside those scheduled times, it’s polite to call a non-emergency line first to make sure they have the capacity to handle your test call. You wouldn’t want to bother them when they’re already understaffed or some large event causes a high call volume.

In the end, an unannounced test call isn’t a big deal either. Just let them know right away what’s happening and they should be fine with it. Just make sure to stick to what you actually need to test. Calling once a week or “testing” a phone that could also make regular calls could be considered disruption of emergency services.

Disclaimer: I’m not professionally affiliated with any emergency service operator, just speaking from personal experience. I’ve had a couple of situations where I wasn’t sure if calling 112 (the European 911) was the right thing, always politely explained the situation and was always told that I had done the right thing. Operators would rather have you call than not call when you’re not sure.

Well, I don’t think you need to make that first call from the same phone so it should be fine. How often have you had to test a 911 call with absolutely no other phones available that you can borrow for a moment?

I come to correct a typo and stay for another add on.

Are you… me?

it’s easy to miss.

Really? I didn’t think it was subtle at all. Even pretty early, when he drives her home and fails to tell her what he thinks about her, I found it pretty obvious that everything that happens to him is a consequence of his own actions. At this point it can still be excused by him being insecure but as soon as he uses the willow, it is very clear that he doesn’t care even a tiny bit about what she wants, he just wants to own her.

Nikki not having a real backstory is (probably) on purpose. We see most of the story from Bear’s perspective and he doesn’t care about her backstory. So we don’t get to see it.

The whole film uses those stereotypes on purpose to show how problematic they are.

I (unironically) love how your comment gets longer and longer every time I refresh this thread.

Exactly my thoughts. Yeah, you can argue that he wasn’t aware how his wish would play out in detail but that’s pretty much the only point that redeems him.

He would have had a realistic chance to be with her if he had just actually talked to her in the beginning. Instead he completely ignores the entire concept of consent, uses a supernatural artifact to make her feel things against her will and while she still acts more or less normal, he shows exactly no remorse. He only gets interested in reversing the wish when there are negative consequences for him. He doesn’t care for her feelings at all.

He’s toxic, he comes as close to being a rapist as you can come and the film makes a point of showing us that the real Nikki is still somewhere inside the remote-controlled shell that he has created and is very much not okay with what is happening… How can anyone see him as the victim?

I think it’s a screenshot from the movie Obsession. Spoilers ahead but I’ll be as vague as possible:

I said he can keep it. No promises about it staying attached.

The smartest thing my monitors ever need to do is to automatically select the active input.

Okay, here‘s a compromise for him: he shuts down his company and refunds everything that was paid with tax money (with interest) and he can keep his head.

It (usually) does not, at least not for websites. Reading the screen would require a lot of computing power and be prone to mistakes, especially with unusual fonts and noisy backgrounds.

Instead, screen readers read a website‘s HTML source code which also gives the developer the chance to annotate how certain elements should be read. Accessibility on the web has been a huge topic for years and serving obfuscated HTML that only works for seeing users goes against everything we have been fighting for.

Yeah, because fuck accessibility, right?

Since 2022, it has been at least weekly on average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2020s)

I have a decades old fridge that literally freezes my veggie drawer every two weeks. I‘m so close to throwing it out.

I’d argue that shortened names aren’t pronouns. Like, “Bob” isn’t a pronoun after all. But that’s a cool idea nonetheless.

Counter-argument: the only two reasons why “Bob” isn’t a pronoun are a) because English has other pronouns and b) because not every name has a form that’s short enough to use in place of pronouns.

I would say it’s fully plausible that a language develops proper pronouns (with case markings and everything else you would expect) based on a rule that works with any name. As an arbitrary example, a Robert, Robin, Ronald and Rocinante might all use roki for the nominative case, ros for the genitive case and ron for the accusative case. In the absence of other pronoun systems, that would be indistinguishable from what you imagine as pronouns. Add a few centuries of sound shifts and you get something really interesting.