Posts by brightpuma

Benjamin James6 said:And you think this is some isolated incident? If you had bothered to glance at the comment sections under those articles regarding the concert at Central Park a few weeks back, you would have seen people practically praying for monkeypox or airstrikes... everything short of peace.
It seems our society is profoundly fractured; we are still dragging the baggage of conflicts from eighty years ago, and the tensions from the early nineties only added fuel to the fire. Of course, we also have the professional agitators on both sides who work tirelessly to ensure these divides are never healed, simply because they profit immensely from the friction. I am not entirely certain if the animosity is quite as intense between the French and the Albanians, or within those specific political extremes over in Spain and Ireland, but as long as this level of vitriol persists here, true progress will remain out of reach. We either need to push these provocateurs out of our public discourse, or we might as well just split the country down the middle and let everyone live on their own side.

It isn't a one-way phenomenon, but honestly, shouldn't people be able to look at things through a normal lens?
Take what was being commented on above (like an earthquake or a flood). It's like, it doesn't matter if people die or the infrastructure gets trashed, as long as the political option you hate loses power.

In this case, it's not even about whether the decision itself is right or wrong. The mere fact that the decision goes against Eric Adams makes it a win for them. They don't care that we won't be able to fix this issue for the next fourteen years, as long as Adams was in the wrong.

And that's messed up. For someone relatively young like me, it feels like there's no point in staying here. This country isn't going to change as long as people think like this and refuse to see the big picture.

darkdrifter17 said:It’s becoming painfully obvious that we’re in a freefall, and voter support is bleeding out on a daily basis. What I find truly suspicious, though, is why the mainstream media refuses to take any real aim at Eric Adams and his administration here in New York City. In just eighteen months, the Adams camp managed to paint some lines for a bike lane that’s barely 250 meters long🤣. They’ve completely bungled waste management, and the whole situation with childcare and parental support is a mess that both supporters and critics are just watching unfold from the sidelines. And honestly, at this rate, I wonder when we can expect wild boars to start roaming through the middle of Manhattan.

I just want to know how they can call it a fiasco while opponents of the measure just stand there watching🤣.
Well, they actually scrapped and redid the policy just like they promised, and then the Republican Party courts stepped in to halt them. I don't really see how the opposition can blame them for that🤷.

GG, the more you talk, the more it looks like this is about more than just volunteering. Like hollowmason64 said, you're acting like this is somehow your own personal business.

Sam Wright21 said:I'm certainly not disputing that. It’s just the kind of broken, systemic mess our country can be. 😢

I am looking at this strictly from an urban planning perspective. We aren't talking about those flimsy little eyesores that get slapped onto empty lots and drain already crumbling infrastructure, much like the projects favored by those old-school political thugs.

It deeply bothers me to think that this style of shady, backroom dealing might carry over to the current administration, though looking at this specific plan, that doesn't seem to be the issue here. The real trouble lies with generic surname and the local issues—something I've brought up before.

Edit: I'm sharing this from the Waste Management thread. It's a long read, but worth your time; it isn't strictly about trash, and it comes from a colleague who is a civil engineer:

Just so it doesn't look like I'm just venting here, this is actually well-written and put together 👍

I like the concept. Makes sense. We really should be organizing everything this way instead.

Sam Wright21 said:Absolutely. It just remains a mystery why, after all this legacy talk, we aren't already seeing the follow-through on the specific path we selected to drive real change.

And what was the alternative? Privatizing everything? Now that would be something people actually cheered for. 😬

Man, how do you come up with this kind of nonsense? 🙄

Gregory Hall66 said:Didn't Toto and his little band of wizards present themselves as the ultimate masters of European Union projects?

And yet, when they are handed a complete slam dunk—faced with crumbling municipal infrastructure following an earthquake—these great sorcerers don't even bother to draft proposals for funds that are already earmarked. Are they all suddenly sharing the same brilliant idea that the infrastructure isn't actually damaged?

Is anemic property ownership supposed to serve as their convenient excuse for sheer incompetence?

I think someone above already said this, but you can't just pass off mid-century infrastructure as "damaged by an earthquake."

Maybe they could try claiming recent renovations were hit by the quake, but they can't use that to patch up ancient stuff. Those things are falling apart because they're old, not because of an earthquake.
And since it's European money, they probably want you to prove the damage was caused by the quake. It's not like they're just going to take your word for it.

Harold Phillips54 said:The most recent update from three days ago:
Petek: Due to a failing system, New York City is losing $150,000 worth of drinking water every single day ...

https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=...ANieW6rGfVA1bq

As far as I can recall, Bill de Blasio managed to secure about $1.5 billion from the disaster relief fund following the earthquake, based on expert assessments at the time.
Eric Adams turned down over a billion of those two billion dollars and sent it back to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, explaining that he had an excess and nowhere to put a billion dollars; he only took $600 million for building reconstruction, which the department immediately redirected toward other federal recovery projects.
He didn't take a single cent for fixing the underground infrastructure, even though the Spending Regulation for the relief fund specifically included provisions for repairing infrastructure—like water, gas, and sewage networks.
It’s been quite some time since I shared both the regulation and this information on this thread, and I ended up with several pages of people mocking me and insisting I was talking nonsense.

A while back—maybe a month, two, or three ago (time flies, so my memory is a little fuzzy)—the Secretary of HUD essentially forced Eric Adams into a meeting. By "forced," I mean the meeting was initiated by the Biden Administration rather than Adams himself, basically "shoving" two billion dollars toward him for New York City's underground infrastructure via EU funds—or something similar, I can't quite remember. This is what Adams has been talking about in recent weeks: how they are preparing projects worth two billion, starting with the first billion. It’s in the government's best interest to spend the VF2 money; under the NPOO, it's laid out that the EK approves cash tranches based on meeting specific milestones. The administration needs these projects to keep the economy moving, so they gave Tomašević a nudge and essentially forced his hand. It isn't easy for him; he'll have to cough up part of that two billion from the city treasury, which is why Tomašević has gone into a century-long slumber like Sleeping Beauty. Whether it's 20% or 30%, or even just 15%, if it's only 15%, that's still $230 million coming out of the city coffers—money that Tomašević doesn't actually have, since whatever he has (or borrows) goes toward ideological programs and idling machinery. He'd probably rather blow tens of millions on "civic education" in schools and preschools than on replacing cracked pipes.
It’s standard practice for mayors and governors to go to the Secretary and lobby for their cities' interests, begging for funds. In this case, for Sleeping Beauty Tomašević, the Prince—the Secretary—had to show up and convince her "to accept the kiss."🙂

If I remember that story correctly—someone please set me straight if I'm wrong—the whole reason he was returning the money was because it was sitting in a fund he didn't actually have the authority to touch?

I don't feel like digging through everything right now, but I remember some explanation about this. Apparently, they only have around 800 million in actual costs or projects lined up, even though they've been allocated 2 billion. They basically had nowhere to put the money, so he was asking if there's any way to repurpose those funds.

vividbear12 said:I don't want to label the dead, I've seen his megalomania and his shitty way of governing too... It doesn't matter anymore...

Honestly, look at what people on this forum are saying. Your total turnaround from being his biggest fan to his harshest critic is pretty noticeable... I don't really care about the motives, but it stands out...

Would you have voted differently if you knew then what you know now?

Man, back then she just thought her project would fly through. Since it didn't, suddenly Eric Adams is the bad guy.
In an election, she'd probably vote for whoever would let her push whatever agenda she wants through today. 😬

Sam Wright21 said:Elvis Presley:

brightpuma As if we haven't seen this script before. It’s the same tired cycle playing out on repeat, much like watching a rerun of a mediocre sitcom that everyone agreed to stop watching years ago. We sit here, waiting for a shift in the wind, while the powers that be continue to shuffle the deck, hoping we won't notice the cards are marked. It feels less like progress and more like a slow, rhythmic descent into the same predictable frustrations we've been navigating for decades. Especially when you consider that we're looking at a specific project where Google clearly has its own skin in the game. 😬

If we are operating under the assumption that my interests are aligned with the public good—which they are—then your argument holds some weight. However, if you’re attempting to imply that I am driven by some ulterior motive, like a direct financial stake in this matter, then you have completely missed the mark.

Of course I'm not. ☕It’s just how people act when their plans get shut down. Like a scorned girlfriend, really. 😉

Gary Cox2 said:Pretty sure that's not how this actually went down.

Here's the real deal: doctors retire once they hit 65. If they want to keep grinding, they can stay on until they're 70.
Once they submit a request to keep working, the relevant agency signs off, but the final call—the actual official decision—comes from the Secretary of Health.

A doctor can only ask to extend their service up to five times, and they still have to wrap it up by 70.

Once you hit 70, you're out. Period. It's the law. The Secretary of Health handles the retirement, not some mayor.

There you go.

Whatever... who cares? It's not like the Republican Party is going to go after the Secretary. Eric Adams is much easier to blame. 😁

jadetinker85 said:The local government blocked a GP from extending her contract just because she hit retirement age. She’s gone, nobody was hired to replace her, and now 2,000 people are stuck searching for a doctor while every decent physician in the city is already overbooked.

What exactly does Eric Adams do all day? Manage bike lanes?

So, was that doctor actually experienced when she graduated, or did she just pick up that skill over time through years of practice? 😁

Why not give the younger generation a fair shot? We can't just have people working until they're 70 and blocking everyone else from even getting a foot in the door.

Sam Wright21 said:The city’s programming goals are completely lacking any sense of balanced urban development. It is glaringly obvious that urbanism has been relegated to an afterthought, when in reality, it demands deep, expert deliberation rather than these half-baked impulses.

Especially when it’s a specific project that Google has a stake in. 😬

It’s not all bad. She might be on the ignore list for most people in that chat, but at least she found someone here to actually talk to, unlike back there where everyone just ignores her.

As for Honey, I don't get the impression anyone has really taken her seriously, except maybe Jason Richardson5 for his own reasons. Everyone messes around here; it's not an exception. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong. 🤷

And I’ve never seen Ethan Bailey18 before. First time seeing that handle. Maybe she used a different name before or was posting from a burner account.

Kimberly Rodriguez51 said:Closing a thread is just another tool in a moderator's kit, plain and simple.
If I were actually as heavy-handed as you all claim, I could have easily handed out bans for opening new threads, even though I specifically told you guys not to.
So, I'm reopening the old thread now, with one more reminder: leave the moderation talk out of it. I really don't feel like handing out bans today, regardless of what you might think.

It’s not even about what people think, since the bans have been issued—and they were issued after God knows how long by a moderator who doesn't even hang out in that thread.
The conclusion is pretty self-explanatory.

I don't really participate in the thread anymore and I barely post on Rekra, but I still read it and handle the moderation.
That's all from me.

It's obvious that 🕺

Noah Roberts46 said:Blade Runner 2049, Arrival, Interstellar, Inception, Ex Machina, Annihilation, District 9, Gravity, Children of Men, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Moon, Donnie Darko, Her, Minority Report (the last Spielberg one was decent enough for me)...

Just off the top of my head—and look, I wouldn't call all of these masterpieces, but most are at least solid. You seriously cannot tell me there hasn't been good sci-fi coming out of America over the last 15 years. If anything, I'd argue there's quite a lot of it, despite this massive superhero wave everyone loves to hate on. Case in point: Villeneuve will probably turn Dune into a multi-film epic.

I'll concede that overall movie quality in the States has dipped compared to the 90s and previous eras, but people really go overboard claiming there isn't any good cinema left.

Those two would’ve been great if they just cut the last half hour. 😬Both were excellent until they totally botched the endings.

The ideas don't even bother me that much. It's just that it happens so often—someone takes a brilliant idea and messes it up. Or they buy a great story and then just ruin it.

Look at those recent video game adaptations, like Assassin's Creed or WoW. Those games have such interesting stories to pull from. But somehow, they managed to take a finished narrative and turn it into... well, something pretty mediocre.
They're planning a Witcher project too. I just hope they don't screw that one up just as badly.

Might as well jump in, since I’ve got a bit of skin in the game regarding movies 😁

Regarding these superheroes, here's my take on the whole thing.

Honestly? I think life is already messy enough. I don't need to sit through heavy, soul-crushing themes when I'm watching a movie that's supposed to be my escape. One glance at the news or any major outlet like CNN and you're hit with enough grim reality to last a lifetime.
I watch movies to unwind, to have some fun, and to give my brain a break from the daily grind. That's why superhero flicks, comedies, and even the mindless stuff actually work—that's exactly what they're built for. Pure entertainment.

The last thing I want is some deep drama that leaves me feeling depressed about how garbage humanity can be.🙄

I don't really get people who go out of their way to watch horror movies either. Seriously? I already struggle with getting enough sleep; why would I want more nightmares to deal with? 🤣

The immigrants on ZK just didn't work out. They mostly just stirred up drama among the moderators who kept jumping into the debates (I don't even need to name names)

And since you can't actually hold moderators accountable, it’s no wonder things went south...

Anyway, I'm sure someone will dig into this and clear everything up soon enough...

lonebadger6 said:🤦

You're trolling already.

Yeah. It’s commenting on the mods. He commented on the moderation. His post included a remark about how this forum is moderated. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not.

If you honestly think someone is going to sit here and give you a detailed lecture on why commenting on the mods counts as "commenting on moderation," you might want to rethink that.

Well, once someone other than you comes along and gives a better explanation for why that counts as commenting on moderation, then maybe I'll think about it. Right now, it looks like none of the admins even bothered to look into this. Clearly, they couldn't care less... 🙄

Also, I'm with Morgan Rodriguez57 on this one. You've twisted the word "trolling" beyond recognition. Anything you don't like, you just call trolling and ban them. On the flip side, people who actually troll systematically (like on your USAisfreedom subforum) get away with it completely unpunished. If you look at the last few dozen posts from that user, it's obvious he's mocking every single thread he joins. But somehow, he isn't "trolling." 😍

So, no. I don't think you're qualified to judge what trolling is. Judging by this thread, you can't even tell the difference between actual trolling and commenting on the moderation. Why are you even a moderator? 🤔

lonebadger6 said:No, it isn't. They were sanctioned according to the site rules. You can like those rules or hate them. Think whatever you want about them. But the admins set the rules, and based on those rules, that user was sanctioned.
If there’s any confusion about what constitutes "arguing with moderation," that PDF is right there to clear things up. It's all laid out. This is arguing with moderation.
Look, I think you understand that this isn't your business (or brightpuma's either). Otompot started a perfectly valid thread and asked a legitimate question. He got his answer. Does it make sense for us to sit here acting like kids, saying "oh yeah?" or "no it isn't?" Not really. That's just arguing with the mods. There’s no situation where you actually need to say that, so there's no issue.

By that logic, can I demand a ban for your post because I feel like answers like yours insult my intelligence? 🤷

And it’s not just me—it’s everyone else on the board. You're trying to push this as "arguing with moderation" so transparently, even though that’s never how it’s been handled before. Just admit you made a mistake instead of trying so hard to defend the indefensible.

The guy got flagged just because he said he wouldn't repost content from another site that violates our rules... Seriously? How is that "arguing with moderation"? 🙄

lonebadger6 said:basically, according to our rules, commenting on the mods is strictly off-limits.

Well, maybe it’s time to rethink those conclusions ( 🤔 ) because that doesn't even make sense. The guy was just hinting at the kind of content found over there—stuff that actually gets people banned on our Reddit. He didn't list specific content or offer his own opinion ( 🤔 ) for anyone to hold against him. If he had said things are more relaxed there and they tolerate stuff that we don't allow here, then sure, you could argue he was targeting the moderation... though even then, it feels like a stretch.

You can only see someone "attacking the mods" if you're actively looking for it. 🤷

hollowmoose21 said:The post wasn't reported, so we missed it. That's not okay, and he got a strike even though it was late.

If it wasn't reported, then why did I report it? 😕

Still nothing... How long does it actually take to get any kind of response?

I see this post was approved since the cards have been dealt, so could someone please explain why this specific post was allowed to pass without any penalty?

xstrom said:Since you're bringing up four acquaintances of yours who aren't facing issues despite having CHF

(your sample size is pretty weak compared to 300,000 infected cases,

I'll give you two tellers instead—which is a much better statistical sample since there are maybe ten of them at that branch office)

Anyway, I might have mentioned this already, but since you guys are like this too, I'll say it again:

one told me, "Don't you trust banks?"

and the other hadn't even "heard" about the final court ruling for "a couple of people"🤣🤣

Fired on the spot with zero severance... those two remind me of those lovely ladies from the concentration camps.

That last sentence feels incredibly tasteless and inappropriate...

Is that really the kind of way we're supposed to talk and think here?