Grumpy @ Grumpy @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

213

Joined

2 yr. ago

Though I've never had issues with wearing ties, perhaps a clip-on tie is something you could try if you have to wear em.

Saturated fat is part of a healthy diet. Too much of it is bad. But too little of it is also bad. Balance is the most healthy thing.

They become semi-side quests once you reach a certain point in the main quest line. Technically, I think you only have to collect just one to three of them to finish the story. I'm not 100% sure though, I too have been too distracted by non-mainline quest thingies.

Easier to show than to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEFpDoB15Lo

120K lands you at 86th percentile [1]. So... relatively, you are sorta well off.

Sure, you can't buy a house with that income in a big city. But that merely shows how fucked up the real estate bubble is. Just think, the top 86th percentile earning person is no where near enough to even buy a home. Houses are about 1m in my neighborhood. So you need to earn about 250k/yr to realistically afford a home. That lands you at 97th percentile. So just top 3% of the people can actually afford a home on a single person's salary. That's how fucked we are.

The median income for a non-family household (i.e. single) is 45k, and family household is 95k (possibly dual income) according to 2023 census [2]. So, you're doing relatively quite well in comparison.

Who is "wealthy" is a subjective term. So a median person might see someone making 120k as wealthy. But the person earning 120k might see themselves as poor since they can't even own a home. Historically, the single income middle class could afford homes.

• Source 1: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
• Source 2: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-279.pdf

Truly living the sandbox dream there.

You need to visit temples to get powers. They're like words of power in skyrim.

I don't really care what the contents are. If someone's using excessive emojis or doing this stupid clapping shit, that's a down vote for me.

They're all referring to corn subsidies.

If you grow corn with subsidy and then sell that corn as livestock feed to cows, then you've indirectly further subsidized beef.

Though... this viewpoint is partly misleading people. Corn stalks and pith which humans can't eat and need ruminant animals to process is what gets fed to them. We don't always feed corn kernels to cows en masse, though many farms do. If they can find a buyer for the kernel for other consumption (human, fructose syrup, etc), they will sell it that way as it is more profitable. So even if it wasn't subsidized and we only produce high priced corn for humans, we'd still feed the stalks and pith to cows.

I do not think end justifies the means. And companies should not be given a pass in the name of capitalism. Where are people coming up with this?

I said I'm for unions. Strangely people replying to me seems to be ignoring my very first line.

But there's no evidence that unionized workers wouldn't make shit games just as well.

I only played like 15hrs of vanilla Skyrim. But played like 1000+ hrs of modded Skyrim. I've now played about 30hrs of starfield. If the modding scene gets as big as Skyrim, I think it would have merit in longevity.

I'm all for unions. But I'm not sure how it translates to good for players. Unions exist for fair wages and working environment, not direction of how games should be made.

Edit: People sure seem to get the wrong impression with my question. As I said in the very first line, I am for unions. They're great and we should strive for fair working wages and hours, especially in 2023 where wages are stagnating while having massive inflation. We should have happy employees and I prefer my games made by happy employees. Failure to keep the wages up is creating shit ton of societal problems.

Issue is the delusion people are presenting here. Unions are not magic. It doesn't automatically improve unrelated things. What people are missing is that there is no evidence the union has ever advocated for a better product. If one exists, despite my desperate attempt to find one, then it's clearly a fringe case. All the replies are making a huge logical leap of simply saying happy worker produces better product with no reasoning behind it. Unions never argue for better product. That's just not what unions do. It argues for the betterment of workers.

Unionizing increases productivity for some sectors. But they're usually rare and only seen in specific industries. They generally have no significant impact on productivity based on research. If it straight up increased productivity and made better products, every company would love it. The argument is counter-logical. Companies do what is efficient. Even if we assumed individual productivity is increased, there's still no evidence that these individuals would have the capacity to change the direction in which the product is being made in the upper tier.

We need unions. But unions aren't magic.

This is a false narrative people keep pushing in order to ignore the reason pandas became threatened. Their population decline has one and one reason only, that is: habitat loss. In other words, as usual, it's human fault.

Pandas mate and pump out healthy babies perfectly fine in the wild. They only refuse to mate in captive environments filled with onlookers. This is a very common behavior among captive animals of many different species, not just pandas. Probably most humans too.

Article headline is bullshit.

Their source doesn’t say 61% of Gen Z.

It only surveyed people who already have anxiety.

So it’s 61% of gen z with anxiety have a official anxiety diagnosis from a medical professional.

Article is bullshit anyway.

Their source doesn't say 61% of Gen Z.

It only surveyed people who already have anxiety.

So it's 61% of gen z with anxiety have a official anxiety diagnosis from a medical professional.

Probably stops at civil war.

He's not being a white knight towards this specific woman.

He's raising the topic of what is best for society.

I agree with his point. Law and order doesn't exist to punish people or to get revenge. It exists for the benefit of society. And putting people in jail, making them unable to contribute to society and becoming a permanent burden on society is bad for society. It doesn't do any good.

Frankly, I think it's better for society to just bring back the guillotine if we aren't going to rehabilitate.

You seriously have a reading comprehension problem.

• I never said safety is irrelevant. I said guarantee is irrelevant.
• I never assumed men will readily jump on an average looking woman. I said it's been tested.
• People seeking casual sex has nothing to do with shallowness. You brought that out of nowhere.
• I never spoke poorly of men.
• I never said women have it easy. In fact, I distinctively said they do not. I said they have it easier.

Nothing you argued about since the beginning is based on what I said. Learn to read. Or fuck off.

I didn't say any average woman can have sex with any man she meets. I said an average woman can have sex with a man every night. That's extremely different. They can send a message to 100 different guys every day on dating app and straight up ask for sex. Guaranteed at least 1 guy will say yes. People have tested this. This is absolutely true.

There are real women who's imo pretty below average looking do this on regular basis. With hundreds of past sex-partners.

But even if you ignore that, what guarantee do those women have of being safe?

There isn't. That's irrelevant though. What guarantee do I have that I would save a safe time getting anywhere by car? There isn't. Why do you seek for a guarantee in anything anyway? That's pointless and irrational. What guarantee does a guy have that when he meets up, there's actually just bunch of muggers? There isn't. That happens too btw.

You meet somewhere public & safe, take your time to vet, and then act on the perceived risk and reward. That's how life works. There's never a guarantee of anything in life.

But that's still vastly easier than getting 0 matches and never having a chance to begin with. Fact is, women do match on dating apps, and they do go on dates, and they do have sex. Stats prove this. Men do not get anywhere near as much in any of the stats.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying people are having easy time getting genuine relationships. Dating apps ruin it for everyone. But if you don't think women have it easier, you are completely ignorant to the stats that's we're seeing.

I disagree that this is a right wing talking point, but whether it is or not is irrelevant. If it's a problem, it's a problem. There is no "buying into it."

It's a genuine problem that billionaires create literally ONE MILLION times more carbon footprint than 90% of the people. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1135446721/billionaires-carbon-dioxide-emissions