Not that I want to unroll it, but why did it “roll” up in the first place? It seems so tightly wound compared to, like, the intestines or something. Just curious.

I didn’t even think of that. Thank you for the info!

I used it once to write a polite “fuck off” letter to an annoying customer, and tried to see how it would revise a short story. The first one was fine, but using it with a story just made it bland, and simplified a lot of the vocabulary. I could see people using it as a starting point, but I can’t imagine people just using whatever it spots out.

Spelling “Lunatic” as “Lunatique” now. Shout out to the poor folks that just died in the street and starved. Surprised it’s only 6.

To each their own! I enjoyed playing as

But I’m glad you like the other playthroughs!

Outlast Trials and I’m giving Destiny 2 a shot.

Shit on the sidewalk.

My current and only friend is a person I met at work. We spent a good couple hours playing Outlast Trials yesterday, we send gifts to each other (in different states) and she actually came up for my birthday. I have cried and laughed with her, she held my hand when I had to put my cat down. She is the best friend I have ever had, now or previously. But some people are just messy, so there’s always a word of caution. Some people just like to be messy, or even sabotage others if they’re a real piece of work. It’s less about not making friends at work imo, but to be careful when doing so.

Between $25-$30/month. It’s technically a dollar per gig of data up to 10gb, but I don’t leave the house often so I use only a couple dollars worth. Also unlimited text and talk. In the US.

I love Nier! I’m thought the second play through would be a slog, but they kept it really interesting imo. And starting it up for a third time was wild. Even starting that game is part of the game mechanic, it’s so neat!

Unfortunately, no. You can’t even get rid of that debt with bankruptcy. I have the same government loans. You can apply for forbearance to at least protect your score a bit if you can’t pay.

Start paying, even if it’s minimum payments.

You want to be in good standing (if you aren’t already) before the changing of the guards. They will garnish your wages, and it’ll be worse than whatever you were gonna pay. It’ll so fuck up your credit. Check the interest and see if you can at least start tackling that if it’s not too egregious. Republicans are securely on the side of the loan companies and there a chance they’ll let them loose with the right bribe or two, and it make get worse before it gets any better.

I always wanted to buy up a bunch of section 8 housing and make the really nice. Like, free wifi, gym, day, care, maybe some simple shops on the bottom floor. It would hold events, regular stuff like bingo or what have you, but also job fair/workshops, health talks, etc. I would partner with local business (hell, even big ones), so people living in my property get discounts for food, clothes, etc by showing their apart key or whatever. I wanted to make a really nice living space for people with lower income because they always get the shittest stuff. I wanted people to have a place of pride to come home to, a place safe for them and their families.

My follow up was to buy luxerh condos/apartments for the stupid rich, up the rent, and use the difference to continue funding my stuff, or, if I didn’t need it, make a months raffle or something.

What a fucking snitch. 9.5% of engineers gotta go, but the CEO getting paid buckets and buckets of money isn’t draining the company? Fire 9.5% of engineers that actually have knowledge and are skilled enough to demand a high price for their skills, or CEO fuck-all who comes in via zoom once a quarter and couldn’t open a pdf if they’re life depended on it. Hmm, what a hard choice 🤔

So he wanted forced hysterectomies, ban women over 30 from getting married, and restrict women’s access to education so they could focus on babies. I love that all of this pressure is on women like it’s just them being stubborn and not a reaction to the society they’re trying to survive in. It also alludes that men are otherwise thriving, with no other issues than women’s lack of interest causing their disinterest. Men aren’t looking to have kids either. And I don’t think forcing them to limit their own dating pool and knowing that they’ll have to fully support a pregnant, uneducated wife and possibly multiple children is going to make anyone rock hard. Japanese people are already worked to death, and everything is sp competitive. Maybe deal with that before wtf that plan was???

The final line of the snippet states: “Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, UN Women’s deputy executive director, said: “What the data is telling us is that it is the private and domestic sphere’s of women’s lives, where they should be safest, that so many of them are being exposed to deadly violence.” It is not saying that, if women die, it’s likely from DV, nor are they claiming to speak for homicide as a whole. They’re saying that in cases of DV, women are more likely to be the victim. It’s not spreading fear, it’s just awareness. It sounds bad because it is bad. Sometimes that’s just how it is.

The only way they could get this information is to compare it, that’s why they’re focusing on women, they happened to come out in top. If they said “smokers have an 80% higher chance of cancer”, I’m taking it that they compared it to people who don’t smoke, they don’t need to tell me that because I can infer it. If I get a report that says “men are 50% more likely to die in combat” I wouldn’t sit and go, “compared to what? Women? CHILDREN!? Why are they just focusing on men, like women don’t die in combat! They’re just showing scary numbers!” they’re focusing on the group that came out in top and delving into that. I don’t know how you would read the title of the article and be surprised that that is what they are focusing on.

“We know nothing about their history, their language, or what they look like, but we can assume this: they stand for everything that we don’t stand for. And also, they told me you guys look like dorks.”

Well, the way they initially presented has people coming in saying “Well, men get hurt too” like they’re trying to say they don’t. The way this first explained the numbers is saying, “Hey, they’re 27% more likely to be harmed.” All the person did was turn the data into a percentage.

How is it dishonest? It’s looking at one specific kind of harm. It just happens men aren’t the highest statistic for this kind of violence. That’s literally all it’s saying. “When it comes to relationship violence, women tend to be victims more often than men.” If this was a report about suicide and they were ignoring men, I would get the issue.

It’s like an article talking about smokers being more likely to get lung cancer. It’s not the only way to get it, but they’re focusing on smokers. We wouldn’t go, “Well they’re ignoring all the miners.” They just happen to not be the focus of that study.