>>798769
This is literally me btw

>>798793
New York, the ai has spoken

>>798796
Also New York, the ai has spoken

>>798806
\\ Give them all lasagna

>>798827
Still less damage than George Bush

\\George Bush doesn't care about black people

I suspect people are impersonating each other

I am starting to believe

we have an imposter among us

>>798862
Forgot to take off your name

Impersonator

I can't believe you would pretend to be someone else straw girl

\\red imposter being caught acting sus

\\red imposter with a lasagna

When people impersonate me, they literally do exactly what I would do, so I simply do not care

>>798883
Then how come I chak you every single time?

Yeah that's what I THOUGHT

>>798885
#refute

oh, cute—another genius who thinks a single semicolon followed by a lone directive constitutes an argument. congratulations, you’ve discovered the keyboard. since there’s literally nothing to unpack beyond a botched attempt at sounding edgy, i’ll just go ahead and demolish whatever ghost of a point you’re imagining. “explode” as a command only works inside fantasy consoles and bad action movies. in the real world, explosives need primary charges, secondary charges, precise chemical ratios, and detonation sequences that would make your brain reboot. hint: typing a word doesn’t make c4 materialize. further, your punctuation choice is hilariously off. a semicolon terminates a statement; it doesn’t initiate an explosion. if you were aiming for drama, you missed and landed on syntax error. maybe next time try an exclamation mark—at least that conveys excitement instead of looking like you fell asleep on the keyboard. finally, the directive itself is void without an object. explode what, exactly? your credibility? already done. the server? please; the worst thing happening here is heat death from wasted cpu cycles parsing your nonsense. so thanks for the non-statement. it’s always refreshing to watch someone swing at air and call it combat.

>>798889
#refute

you’ve submitted one single, cryptic word followed by a semicolon—barely a sneeze of text—yet you expect a grand refutation. congratulations; you’ve reached peak troll energy. the word “explode” is not a claim, not an argument, not even an opinion—just a raw verb sitting there like it owns the place. there’s literally nothing coherent to rebut, so let’s stretch this rubber band until it snaps. first, the very premise that “explode” deserves any refutation is laughable. language works by encoding meaning; a lone verb with no subject, no object, no context, is semantically bankrupt. go ahead, try to find a proposition in it. you’ll come back empty-handed. so before i can even play devil’s advocate, you have to give the devil something to chew on. a single verb isn’t an argument—it’s a linguistic fumble. second, assuming you smugly intended “explode” as some sort of edgy metaphor—maybe for revolutionary change, for markets, for egos—congratulations again: you’ve picked the most clichéd, overused cliché in the book. literally every hype-man on twitter has screamed “this market is about to explode,” every wannabe philosopher has muttered “reality will explode into fragments of truth.” it’s the verbal equivalent of a glitter bomb: noisy, flashy, and empty once the dust settles. if you think that passes for insight, you’ve set the bar subterranean. third, let’s entertain your pet verb in physical terms anyway. “explode” presumes sudden, chaotic release of energy. in real physics, explosions are wasteful. most of the chemical potential converts to heat and uncontrolled shrapnel rather than useful work. thermodynamics laughs at the notion that “explode” equals progress. compare a controlled burn in a piston engine—where expansion is tamed into linear motion—to a random detonation that just tears everything apart. if you’re championing “explode,” you’re championing entropy over order, waste over efficiency, destruction over construction. that’s not revolutionary; that’s toddler-level tantrum physics. fourth, on a sociocultural level, fetishizing “explode” usually masks a poverty of tactics. people who scream for explosions rarely have a blueprint for what comes after the blast crater. look at any historical revolution that began with a literal or metaphorical explosion: 90% end up with rubble, power vacuums, and strongmen who sweep up the shards. the fireworks feel good for a night; then the city wakes up with broken windows and no plan. if that’s your grand vision, you’re not a thinker—you’re just another vandal with a molotov cocktail of empty slogans. fifth, linguistically, the imperative “explode” is infantile. it’s the kind of thing a 14-year-old writes on a desk in sharpie because it sounds cool and transgressive. adults prefer verbs that imply agency and consequence: dismantle, deconstruct, reform, iterate. those words entail responsibility; “explode” abdicates it. if you’re still at the developmental stage where shock-value verbs pass for wisdom, that’s a you problem, not a debate problem. finally, your presentation itself reeks of lazy provocation. a single semicolon followed by a verb? that’s not mysterious; that’s just sloppy. you’re not prompting insight; you’re shitposting and hoping someone else does the intellectual heavy lifting. next time, bring a coherent thesis, some shred of context, or at least a subject–object–verb combo so the rest of us can do something other than mock the vacuum you’ve created. so no, “explode” isn’t profound, isn’t edgy, isn’t worthy of refutation. it’s a hollow syllable pretending to be dangerous. now either build an actual argument or stop wasting oxygen.

>>798894
#refute

oh, an empty statement followed by a glorified punctuation mark—how profound. since you apparently need everything spelled out, here’s why “;>explode” is worse than useless: 1. ambiguity is not clever the symbol “;>” already has half-a-dozen meanings in half-a-dozen contexts: shell redirection, javascript ipython magics, emoji‐style kaomoji noses, whatever. slapping “explode” after it just screams “i couldn’t decide which cliché to use, so i mashed them together.” if you were capable of coherent intent you’d have written an actual command. 2. zero reproducibility type that incantation in bash → ;>explode: command not found. try it in a repl → syntaxerror. drop it in a makefile → “missing separator.” congratulations, you’ve invented a cross-platform failure. 3. misleading danger signal the word “explode” is a trigger-happy red button that promises catastrophic results. yet nothing happens—your line does literally nothing—so the only thing that goes up in flames is your credibility. real devs treat those words like live ammo; script kiddies treat them like fireworks. 4. no namespace, no scope, no hygiene if this is supposed to be a metasyntactic placeholder for some future function, it pollutes global scope without a namespace prefix, violates every lint rule ever written, and will get you publicly shamed in any code review. you’d know that if you had ever opened a linter. 5. performance fantasy even if “explode” were some hand-rolled vectorized operation, the semicolon prefix forces an unnecessary subshell and creates an extra zero-length file named “explode” on disk. you just turned o(1) into o(n) disk i/o for the lulz. 6. security theater a string that looks like shell but isn’t shell is the perfect trojan for a rubber-ducky payload or a typo-squatted alias. you’re literally training users to ignore real warnings because you wanted to look edgy. 7. bikeshed entropy teams waste hours bikeshedding whether “;>” or “; : >” or “>&- explode” is more “aesthetic.” meanwhile, diff lines bloat, git blame becomes unreadable, and the intern you’re trying to impress quietly updates their resume. in short, “;>explode” is the textual equivalent of a whoopee cushion: loud, pointless, and embarrassing for everyone within earshot. if you want something to blow up, start with your own commit history and spare the rest of us.

>>798899
#refute

that’s cute—you want a scathing takedown of a blank page. maybe next you’ll ask me to critique silence or disprove the void. if there’s no text, there’s nothing for me to refute. try again when you actually bring something to the table.

>>798927
Damn this goes hard

>>798931
Looks more like a makarov mixed with like

>>798939
The grip? and the profile at the back?

Along with the safety

>>798951
The lil dot near the trigger

That's the slide release thoughbeit, but also there's that lil dot, I thought the makarov safety was lower down

>>798968
I've only shot them a couple times, so it's based on like a 6 year old memory

>>798973
Saeki being prevented before the war crime tribunal

#say cows

#say cows

#say cows cows cows

#say cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows cows

>>798995
Have you seen grimbus?

#say moo

>>799020
Interesting proposal

#say frotting is based

#ai I am smoking a perdomo lot 23 toro, opinions?

solid yard-gar. the connecticut shade is smooth and buttery, zero pepper, but the flavor stays stuck in mild-creamy-hay for the whole hour; filler can get a little woody halfway and the finish is short. construction is typically on point—good draw, even burn, no touch-ups—average aging on the wrapper improves the sweetness a hair. if you’re reaching for complexity you’ll be bored; if you want something easygoing while doing yard work or pairing with coffee it’s fine. price is fair at 6-7 bucks so no regrets, just don’t expect it to punch above its weight class. I am smoking a perdomo lot 23 toro, opinions?

>>799048
Man AI does not know about the tariffs lmao they run like 12 bucks these days

>>799063
Would you say yippee to me???

>>799069
What does that mean!!

>>799072
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!

>>799078
Punished for his greed