script stuff regenerated by a tool

src/script-primaryVO.txt

@@ -1,25 +1,23 @@
 
 
-Autumn is my favorite season. The horror genre is in the mainstream entertainment channels. The temperature is in the 60's. The pumpkin spice is in god damned everything, including my veins. The leaves are in color. The women are in yoga pants. And the wildlife - specifically the tastier speces - are in season.
+Autumn is my favorite season. The horror genre is in the mainstream entertainment channels. The temperature is in the 60's. The pumpkin spice is in god damned everything, especially my veins. The women are in yoga pants. The leaves are in color. And the wildlife - specifically the tastier speces - are in season.
 but today: be vewwy vewwy quiet. we'we hunting cwiptids.
 
 
 On rare occasion I do get a tiny amount of flak for the practice of hunting. generally when I'm spending any time socializing with anyone, food is involved. So i *could* return with something like, we just ate meat, so is there a moral issue with doing more of the work myself?
-But I've gone for a gentler approach with some self deprecating humor; i have never successfully harvested any animal, ever. Is it really hunting, or is it paying for a license to wake up before dawn to carry 20 lbs of crap on a glorified hike? I am not, strictly speaking, a hunter. Although capitalism is happy to say I've spent money on products and therefore have earned a sense of community.
+But I've gone for a gentler approach with some self deprecating humor; i have never successfully harvested any animal, ever. Is it really hunting, or is it paying for a license to wake up before dawn to carry 20 lbs of crap on a glorified hike? I am not, strictly speaking, a hunter. Although capitalism is happy to say I've spent money on products and that's what entitles one to a sense of community.
 
 
-Sitting in a blind for hours is depressing. Partially due to sleep deprivation, sure. in spite of how gorgeous the view is, I hate sitting in silence. But what's the difference doing that in a hunting blind, vs at home, out in public?
-There's nothing to do but think.
+Sitting in a blind for hours is depressing. Partially due to sleep deprivation. in spite of how gorgeous the view is, I hate sitting in silence. But what's the difference doing that in a hunting blind, vs out in public, or at home? There's nothing to do but think.
 I'm beginning to doubt that deer exist. I've seen them, in person, in the past. Right? I'm pretty sure that was real.
 The fact that I bought my first hunting license and have ensured I will never again see a deer is a statistical anomaly, right? how do the numbers add up?
 I think their definition of success is to estimate 1 permit to 1 deer. looks like they're estimating 30%. so the situation is pretty bleak.
 If you go out hunting, odds are... you're coming back empty handed.
-so I guess, keep the faith? the one deer walking down this one path will *tooootally* come by and intersect with the time you're there. 
+so I guess, keep the faith? the one deer walking down this one path will *tooootally* come by this time, intersecting with the time you're there. 
 Keep waiting. Your patience will be rewarded. Your efforts will pay off. Have faith.
 
 Ok, for real. Deer exist, I know. I know because I have evidence. 
-Respectively; no, no, and not entirely but maybe a tiny bit? You can only *approach* 0 faith, like an asymptote. Acknowledging that gives you a heuristic to weigh the validity of evidence. Kind of in a bayesian way.
-People talking about something's existence is not evidence. but I can buy some laughably overpriced venison in the store, right now. Although, that could be false advertising. This would be the same place selling some corn syrup in some sake labeled mirin. Not just mirin, but they specifically label their aji mirin as "hon" mirin. They sell wasabi as well, which I'm sure is horseradish with green food coloring. the fact that someone would lie to everyone and argue it's ok because it makes money is... really... how the world works. caveat emptor, bitch.
+Respectively; no, no, and not entirely but maybe a tiny bit? You can only *approach* 0 faith, like an asymptote. Acknowledging that gives you a heuristic to weigh the validity of evidence. If it just offloads faith elsewhere, it's useless. If it requires faith itself, it's even worse than that. People talking about something's existence is not evidence. but I can buy some laughably overpriced venison in the store, right now. Although, that could be false advertising. This would be the same place selling some corn syrup in some sake labeled mirin. Not just mirin, but they specifically label their aji mirin as "hon" mirin. They sell wasabi as well, which I'm sure is horseradish with green food coloring. the fact that someone would lie to everyone and argue it's ok because it makes money is... really... how the world works. caveat emptor, bitch.
 All because one salesman proposes one thing via marketing material, and doesn't get interrogated.
 
 
@@ -29,7 +27,7 @@ For years, retailers said the reason they don't donate food is that they're afra
 have mostly been campaigns in reducing food waste by assuring retailers that it'll be fine.
 Meanwhile various meal ingredient services have marketed themselves as solving hunger by reducing food waste. which is silly, if they have any effect it's to shift food waste into packaging waste.
 no one has ever sued for being saved from starvation. nevertheless the US passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act of 1996 to encourage donation - all it does is reassure retailers they can't be held accountable. 
-Maybe it worked. I can't find anything about how much food is donated per year since the law was passed and the press releases were announced.
+Maybe it worked. I can't find anything about how much food is donated per year since the press releases were announced about the law passing.
 
 
 have you noticed that essentially every product ever has the "california proposition 65 warning"? in 1986, California voters banded together to say hey maybe it would be nice if we could avoid being poisoned a bit.
@@ -46,7 +44,9 @@ the myth endures, though.
 the famous one that we're all up to speed with by now - some company served some literally-skin-meltingly hot coffee to Stella Liebeck, her coffee got spilled, and I cannot stress this enough: her skin. got melted. 3rd degree burns. Micky D's lost the lawsuit, and forever more tells everyone how mad they are about it with the warning on the cup. maybe one might argue she wouldn't have resorted to a lawsuit if she had socialized medicine? Still, I guess we found her, the 1 person who won a lawsuit and got a payout.
 
 
-however. In 2018, Epic Systems Corp (not Epic Games) engaged in wage theft - dollar per dollar the most common crime in the united states, every year, for many years - so Jacob Lewis attempted to start a class action lawsuit, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
+however. In 2018, Epic Systems Corp (not Epic Games) engaged in wage theft - 
+dollar per dollar the most common crime in the united states, every year, for many years -
+so Jacob Lewis attempted to start a class action lawsuit, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
 As usual, the supreme court decided that these pesky laws need to get out of the way of a corporation harvesting wealth from the peasantry (well it was 5-4, exactly the split you would expect). So the victim of wage theft didn't get to go to real court, and of course, arbitration court agreed: stop whining about wage theft.
 Ever since then, **every** user agreement has included an arbitration clause. You know. Because apparently real lawsuits are unjust, real courts are overburdened... So we'll privatize justice, that certainly won't create a kangaroo court. 
 ...oh.