You’re not wrong.

It’s not the first few months of the pandemic anymore?

What year is it?

Clearly. Didn’t you read the post?

Also, I’m an ancestor now. Neato.

Us ancestors are also tired. FYI.

When people call me, I have a mini panic attack worrying who is dead.

Usually it’s just someone calling to remind me that I have a balance due.

Prices going up and wages staying the same?

The same way it’s been for more than a decade?

And this is the basis that people used to justify voting for Trump?

People really are fucking stupid, aren’t they?

Having children demonstrates one of two things: wealth, or intelligence.

On one hand, if you can afford to overcome the obstacles, children seem like a good idea, usually from family wealth, since nobody is going to become wealthy. You’re either born into it, or you’re extremely lucky and you win the lotto or something, which is so unlikely it’s hardly worth mentioning.

On the other hand, if you’re too dumb to know how fucked we all are, or you’re too dumb to use protection in some form… Well. Yay kids? Idk.

Everyone with somewhere close to an “average” IQ, or better, who isn’t part of the upper class with family wealth, is basically represented here.

And if you don’t sin, then Jesus died for nothing.

As a straight dude, I know lots of straight dudes that are represented in this picture.

We all have our little problems. ❤️

WHAT?

Oh good, I made it in time. Woo.

Thanks everyone.

Gas stoves have a place, and I’m not about to take away anyone’s choice on the matter. With all that being said, to the title of this article, I say “duh”… Honestly, who thought that cooking using an open flame inside your home was somehow safer than the alternative?

I use electric, I’ve pretty much always used electric. I will continue to use some form of electric stove. I want to have complete control over the heat going into my cookware, and while it may not be as flashy or as quick to use electric, I can’t see any situation where electric would not be safer.

Why all the construction? Is he building 11 ballrooms?

My logic is along the same line.

I didn’t ask to be here, nobody asked if I wanted to be here. Being here, I kinda wish I was given that choice so I could say no.

Why would I force someone, who I supposedly love, to suffer through gestures at everything this? I love my potential children more than to condemn them to dealing with the children of those wealthy enough to have them.

Child.

According to that, I should be 53.

That’s over a decade older than I am right now.

There’s a paradox I heard of that’s pretty relevant in this line of thought that is pretty transportable to most things. I heard it in the context of IT security.

It goes something like this: you buy security and after 2 or 3 years when you need to renew, nothing bad has happened, so it seems like you don’t need security. When in actual fact the extra security has been the reason there haven’t been any incidents.

So it’s almost impossible to prove that buying the security is helping without extensive analytics.

In many cases those analytics are either very difficult or impossible to get.

To demonstrate the transportable nature of this concept, let’s transpose it to vaccines.

If everyone is vaccinated, then nobody gets sick from those diseases, making it seem like the diseases are not a threat anymore, which means that vaccines are no longer useful.

Meanwhile, in all actual fact, the only reason why polio is so rare is because there is a safe and effective vaccine for it that everyone has taken (replace polio with whatever disease you want that has an effective vaccine).

It’s a paradox of: how do we prove this is working, without discontinuing it and possibly being eaten by rats/leopards/whatever.

If there’s only monopolies in the market then is their product the best on the market, or is everyone using it because there’s no alternatives?

Leaning that monopoly argument against capitalism, it’s almost certainly not the best product. When you have a captive audience, those that need your service and don’t have an alternative, there’s no incentive to innovate, or invest in improving the product at all. Do innovation stagnates so that corporations can maximize shareholder value; because the focus of a corporation isn’t to innovate, or improve what they do, their focus is always on extracting the most value for the least cost.

Therefore, monopolies will almost certainly lead to a sub-optimal product. The people that suffer for this are the users of that product. In the case of something like Google search, that’s basically everyone.

There’s a more modern term for this phenomenon: enshittification. Actively making a product worse specifically for the purposes of creating profits for shareholders.

Late stage capitalism is fun, isn’t it?

I haven’t either.

Speaking of things I haven’t done… I’ve have, not once, turned the wrong way down a one way street.

… It was twice.

So this is what a puppet looks like when you pull your hand out… Very interesting.

That abomination should not have been made.

• someone who used XP 64bit edition

fracking clankers.