That’s usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet

That could have been part of the problem, yeah

You can save quite a bit by getting a refurbished Pixel - looks like the cheapest “Google certified” option (so it comes with a 1-year warranty) is a 6a for $250, which is nearly half off MSRP. I’ve been using my 6a since launch, so it’s been going for 3 years now and I have no desire to upgrade.

You can definitely get cheaper smartphones, but $250 for a 6a feels like a pretty big bang for your buck.

Bro this could be literally any large east-Asian city on an overcast day, most (all?) of which have better urban planning than the rest of the world by a large margin, and most of which fall firmly on the “capitalist” side of the spectrum. “Bloc” housing (or as we call them over here, big-ass apartment buildings) aren’t some communist-exclusive phenomenon.

But you can’t say X + Y is better than Z (by itself)

I mean, yeah, you absolutely can. Especially when X + Y and Z are both common configurations, and using X or Y by themselves is uncommon or a known bad setup.

Sure, you can’t be certain which of X or Y is making the differences in the comparison, but the comparison can absolutely be made.

(ABI? Idk)

Application Brogramming Interface?

Of all the things even vaguely related to this post to be upset with, you chose to comment on title casing?

Eh, splitting the party (or at least exposing the division within the party) is a long shot, but it’s really the only productive way forward if the Democrats want to actually change and fix things. Repeatedly exposing Democrats that vote against the people’s interests is the most surefire way to get those Democrats voted out and replaced with more progressive candidates. Failing that, breaking away from the Democratic party and forming a new more progressive party isn’t the worst long-term option, even if it (probably) won’t be very effective in the near-term.

The first thing I thought was something like helping sort/categorize photos/documents/etc. for libraries or museums or something. But then that made me think of all the existing citizen science efforts out there where they have people categorize images of galaxies and stars and stuff, or run protein-folding simulations on their home computers, etc. I wonder if those kinds of existing things could be spun as “volunteer work”.

Yeah I feel like if a direct attack on American soil that killed thousands of civilians didn’t spark WW3, then nothing will

god definitely exists, as it’s just a philosophical concept to say the “cause of all causes”.

I hope you stretched before making that leap.

Snark aside, this is just a dressed-up version of the “god of the gaps” argument, and is by no means proof of the existence of god. Changing the definition of “god” to be the “cause of all causes” is uselessly broad at best, and misattribution at worst - the “cause of all causes” may very well be a natural phenomenon, at which point attributing it to “god” is just straight up incorrect.

by definition, such a thing exists, i would say.

Actually, maybe not. There’s some new theories and evidence suggesting that it’s possible that the universe is eternal, as in it has always existed, making the existence of a “cause of all causes” impossible (unless of course you also water down the definition of that phrase to the point where it’s meaningless).

If you were in marching band, there’s a good possibility that you had more thorough training in marching than what’s given in basic training, especially if you went to competitions. Marching makes up like half the activity of marching band (it’s in the name). Marching is only one of a plethora of things that are taught during the few months of basic training, and once you’re out of basic, you may never have to march again.

I also think your expectations on how rhythmically-inclined the average person (or soldier) is might be on the high side based on your experience in an activity with a bunch of highly rhythmically-inclined people.

Brick and mortar shops aren’t comparable to websites, and I don’t know why you keep trying to compare them. The places that sell alcohol and tobacco aren’t asking me to upload a digital version of my legal identification to some cloud-backed database. They’re just manually checking a date and a picture. Most places I buy from don’t even make me physically hand over my ID, I can just show it to them without it ever leaving my possession.

How about we put some responsibility on parents to keep their kids away from potentially harmful Internet content, instead of relying on the state to do it for us in large swathes, affecting literally anyone who goes to those sites, legally or not? Surely you’re more on board with responsible parenting than everyone having to hand over their legal identification to a fucking porn site.

your stuck in a port town

I said you’re basically limited to coastline and port cities to point out the contrast to other modes of travel that aren’t nearly as restricted. You either missed that point, or you’re being pedantic.

there’s nothing to do out at sea

My point was that without cruise ships, there would be nothing to do out at sea. Cruise ships solve the problem of “there’s nothing to do or at sea”, but in an unnecessary and dumb way, in my opinion. So again, I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Ultimately I don’t really care what anyone’s opinion on cruises are. What I do care about is making sure I’m understood correctly, hopefully this helps.

You’re coming to these conclusions that just aren’t based on reality.

I’m sharing subjective opinions based on my own preferences and lived experiences. Sorry they don’t match up with yours, but we’re having a disagreement about big boats, not a crisis of reality.

Clearly you’ve never experienced what a cruise is like.

Correct, because they don’t interest me, and I’m not convinced enough by the people that like cruises to warrant spending the money on them.

There are thousands of existing “small towns full of entertainment” I’d rather go to than a cruise. I don’t need my resort to be mobile, and if I want to end up in a new location, I’ll book travel to that location. I don’t need to go on a cruise to relax by a pool, or enjoy a spa, or partake in any of the mundane activities offered on board, or gamble in a casino, or eat food and drink drinks. Cruises don’t offer anything unique that I can’t find somewhere else, other than the novelty of being a cruise, and that novelty just doesn’t interest me.

It’s fine, maybe even healthy, to be wary of other men. It’s also important to respect your partner’s autonomy, and to trust that with that autonomy, they will act in a manner that is healthy for the relationship (and for that trust to be reciprocated). It’s great that you are willing to protect your partner, but it’s important that you let your partner inform you when that protection is needed, instead of assuming based on your one-sided view of the person your partner is interacting with. Taking action based on that one-sided view, instead of having a discussion with your partner first, can make you come off as possessive.

I feel like the bit that’s sort of being glossed over/missed is that the bf in the relationship is making his issue (my gf has friends that want to fuck her) into his gf’s issue by introducing the boundary of “you’re not allowed to have friends that want to fuck you”. That should be an unreasonable boundary for anyone (barring edge case scenarios that involve informed consent between adults) because one person is taking their internal issues and externalizing it on someone else (presumably) without consent.

And then the gf flips that wrongheadedness back onto her bf by saying “if I’m not allowed to have friends that want to fuck me, then you’re not allowed to have friends that want to fuck me either”. It’s a humorous response that illustrates the hypocrisy of the first boundary introduced by the bf, and also hints at the slippery slope nature of forbidding relationships based on uncontrollable, external criteria like “does someone want to fuck you”.

There are cruises that go all over the world, so the number and choices of destinations is huge.

Sure, but cruises are limited to basically just coastline and port cities, whereas literally any other mode of transportation can get you to all of those places too, plus all the other 90% of land on the planet. Saying “the number and choices of destinations is huge” is technically correct, but basically meaningless when you compare it with all other modes of transportation.

Really the only places cruises can go that other modes maybe can’t is:

1. Remote places like the northern coasts of Alaska or Scandinavia
2. The middle of the ocean

I can kinda see why someone would take a cruise to the first item, but I can’t bring myself to understand the second. Like, cruising around the empty ocean for days/weeks on end sounds so boring that you’d need “12 floors, 100 bars, live entertainment, and a plethora of other things” to make it even bearable. They created their own problem (finding entertainment in the middle of empty ocean) and solved it in the most brute force, environmentally unsustainable, and legally sketchy way possible.

You should try having some empathy.