I am a humanities TA, I've never rejected an extension as long as I get asked before the due date. I'm pretty sure I gave someone extra time when they e-mailed me 2 hours before the due date. Half of the time, I barely read the reason why the extension is being requested.

As for this, if the strategy works it's probably because they would have given you the extension anyway if you just asked. If they are being draconian about it, this probably wouldn't work anyway. Depending on what you use to turn in the assignment, it gives you a preview before you hit the final submit and/or after you submit and the professors know this now. Meaning, it would be up to you to fix it or to send an e-mail immediately (for humanities work at least). Even if it bought time, you'd still be losing points for turning in the assignment late. Just ask for the extension, you will most likely get it.

As a final aside, please don't use AI for humanities papers. You don't write like that. We have to use the most trash, questionable "A.I. checkers" possible if something smells fishy. Professors are already paranoid of A.I written papers. Last year the checkers had to have a sky-high percentage assuredness to get you in trouble. That bar has gotten real low this year. Just turn in half-assed self-written garbage. The worst thing that absolute trash gets you is like a mid 50s or a 60s. Getting caught on A.I papers can make you auto-fail the class and get reported to community standards or whatever the equivalent is at your college.

Is kid-diddler too on the nose?

Of all the speculation and zingers on American budgetary preferences, this is probably closest to the truth. Foreign policy does not prevent the creation of infrastructure, in fact, military preparedness under Dwight Eisenhower for a theoretical Third World War was a major factor in getting funds for our interstate system in the first place.

A major hypothesis for why the United States does not care about its public transportation system is that America is ultimately a "car country." If you are interested in reading about the topic (you won't be), I read an interesting book on the development just last semester. It's Car Country: An Environmental History by Christopher W. Wells. Long story short, car companies and lobbyists slowly beat advocates for public transportation leading up to WWII. Post WWII the system was solidified further. There is too much money to be had in producing/maintaining cars and along roads; rest stops, burger joints, gas stations, and the like. The federal gas tax had perhaps the easiest path from concept to legislation in American history. Now no politician is going to be the one to advocate for HSR and thereby kill off parts of the automotive industry, it would basically be political suicide.

Then there are a lot of tertiary points here that criss-cross with other topics. Suburbia moving away from the polluted city centers, they can afford cars so why not. Infrastructure continues to be built with that in mind. The car industry is a pillar of the American economy and has a lot of influence in government. Etc. etc. etc.

My Nigga Totoro

Mine is when engineers place teleporter exits in ways that you come out facing a wall. Rotate the exit man, there is an arrow to help you.

I stole it from the Unreal Tournament series. UT 2003/04 specifically.

Ez, the Cleaner's Carbine. It makes you half a character.

I'd also say the loose cannon, but I don't think it qualifies as garbage.

There is a lot of things at play, I'd recommend looking over this, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/world/europe/italy-referendum.html?ref=europe

People are pre-emptively resigning because, no matter the extent to which this is creatively edited, they can't take any risks at this point. By immediately leaving and denying what isn't explicitly proven, they can be distanced from.

Besides, chances are that the second the results are in, they will immediately get their jobs back or work somewhere else in the same job. Just like the two NPR executives his questionable editing "exposed", one of which just became an executive of another company. The other, his wife, went from NPR to Twitter as Head of News before becoming an independent consultant.

Two gods got their first EVO on the same day.

God damnit, I was already writing my essay doing those exact things. I couldn't know.

I think the idea of Racism is interesting on a conceptual level, in that the very idea of Race is something entirely made up by people for ulterior motives. The idea of "Race" became an excuse to explain why the imperial powers had the technology and capability to conquer others. The way we currently identify race is by phenotype which in respect to race just means "looks like". There is no science behind someone's skin color defining their thought patterns, skin color is just melanin. Skin color is just another human adaptation to the ecosystem, the hotter a place is and the more direct sun it receives the darker the people are going to be. In colder places that receive much less sun the lighter. Hell, my skin color fluctuates over the year getting darker in the summer and getting a little lighter in the winter.

Race has usually been an excuse to explain why people seem to act differently, people are more apt to attribute random luck rather then any other factors. In Greek antiquity before there was any of idea of a unified "Greece" (aka before the Persian Wars where it was made up to cover asses), the people of one poleis would refer to those of another as an entirely different race. The people of Athens would refer to someone from Pherae as a different race, in the words of Herodotus being more inclined to piracy just because they were citizens of that city. It was attributed to something they were born with rather then the fact that the place sucked crop wise and was on the coast, so piracy was about a step up from starving to death.

So essentially the entire idea of being racist does not make sense conceptually, you're assigning imaginary qualities to an entire group of people for really no reason. (To be fair there are a ton of societal reasons that led people to believe certain things about "races", is generally passed down from parents, or the result of one sudden traumatic experience stretched across an entire race)

But the idea of being racist does not necessarily mean you are an inherently bad person, everyone has flaws. Like it has been said, the key difference is whether or not you act on it. One of the key pillars of society is being able to fake being civil. If you aren't burning crosses, taking part in lynch mobs, or actively hurting another person by acting on racist impulses, then chances are no one cares or will actually know. You can be racist as you want to be in your own privacy, legal and illegal is usually where a line is crossed. No one knew Donald Sterling as a quasi-sane racist until his wife ratted him out.

Also, Iguodala's defense in that 4th quarter was obscene.

Klay is a #1 option on most teams in the NBA, has been at that level this year. Steph being superhuman most of the time and Draymond getting the rest of the attention overshadows Klay.

I finally noticed the little green number.