HottieAutie @ HottieAutie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

13

Comments

179

Joined

1 yr. ago

omg the fat on those steaks 🤤

cause of the deep throat

where can I find a blank template pls?

YT wants to keep you watching YT, so:

1. stop watching rage bait videos
2. watch only videos you want on your feed
3. thumbs up videos you want more of
4. "not interested" videos you dont want
5. hide users that post rage bait material
6. 66 😈

Yep! I have the feeling that they hired a few narcissism specialists to help play Trump. He keeps falling for their obvious traps.

Assuming that demand for car insurance is artificially inflated because people are mandated to purchase it, wouldn't an open market still drive down prices due to competition? Another market that has even more demand is food. People aren't even legally mandated to buy food. They either buy it or die. There may be a few people that can grow enough of their own food to sustain themselves without ever purchasing it, but I would guess that there are more people that make enough money to live without insurance than people that grow all of their own food. Despite that, food seems to be relatively affordable. If one food vendor is charging too much or I don't like their product, I can easily go to a competing food vendor and purchase there. Adam's invisible hand then ensures that the market provides an efficient quality-to-price ratio. I'm not arguing it's perfect, but we don't hear about how food stores are ripping us off as much as we do about insurance companies. My argument is that despite there being inflated demand, the insurance companies still have to compete with each other for those customers, which would have a considerable impact on price. Let's say we all buy cars that are valued at $20k. If one company is providing insurance for $100/month and the other company is charging $150/month, everything else being equal, the former would earn more customers.

Also, since demand is high, I think it would LOWER rates. Here's why. If insurance was not mandated, then the people that would get it would include everyone that thinks they may need it. The ones that think they will not use it will avoid wasting their money since they're not receiving anything in return. That means that there will be less contributions and more expenditures from the pooled money, making insurance more expensive. Mandate insurance makes it so that even the people that will not use it contribute to the pool, so everyone's costs are lower than otherwise. Of course, this would only happen in a market that allows for competition. Otherwise, if there were only one insurance provider, they would be in a position to price gouge everyone since the only other option would be to break the law.

I ran a test script below switching everyone's names to the pet name Muffin to get a feel for it and have provided an analysis after.

I think you're right. The thing that sticks out to me is that it becomes difficult to recognize to whom a person is speaking. For instance, let's consider the following line:

Jane: Attention in the mess hall including Muffin and Muffin! I have decided to terminate my participation in the currently proceeding intercourse attempt. Please robe and vacate within 53 second per the terms of services. I love you, Muffin, Muffin, and Muffin.

Jane tries to get the attention of everyone present with emphasis on two specific people. Since she used the pet name Muffin for both, it is hard to discern specifically who, so we need to conduct a logic analysis. Reviewing the history of the script until that line, we notice that only three characters have been introduced. We could temporarily assume that she is not trying to get her own attention (this assumption is discussed further below), so that leaves John and Jack left. Be that as it may, she does say everyone, which can imply that there are other people. She also explicitly calls two people by name, which could suggest that there are other people present since she would not have to have mentioned them by name otherwise. Still and all, she could be an inefficient speaker, so we cannot be certain either way. For the sake of deduction, we have to conduct a run through by holding these assumptions as true for the time being. Precipitously, it gets even crazier because there are three characters to whom she refers to by pet name at the end. Holding our assumption that she is not referring to herself, our previous deductions would be proven invalid. That would clear things up for us as we would now know that she is referring to the first two Muffins in particular, just not who those two would be by discernible name. It also leaves us a bit charmed as to who is the possible new Muffin. Per contra, that would be holding our assumption that Jane is not referring to herself. I have heard people call themselves by name, so we cannot be certain. I conjecturize that if we had enough data, would could analyze how often someone refers to themselves by name, then use statistical methods to analyze and conclude confidence percentages.

In any case, I agree with you. Using pet names does not measurably make this interaction less weird. But something still feels uncomfortable. I wonder what it is then. Any ideas?

I don't know. I think it would lead to weird conversations, especially during romantic events.

Jane: John, please put your pipi in my vivi soon as I believe I am properly irrigated.

John: Solid copy, Jane. I will proceed to initiate the insertion protocol.

Jane: I appreciate that, John.

John: You are welcome, Jane.

Jane: Oh my, John. That feels too big.

Jack: Sorry, Jane. That was me. I was distracted watching the news on the television when you spoke and must have misheard. I will pull out my pipi from your vivi, Jane.

Jane: Jack, you're so distracted! haha

John: Announcement! I have completed the insertion protocol, everyone. Jane, is it too big?

Jack: Ouch! That is me, John.

John: Jack, oops. I think I am also distracted by the news on the television. The story about the wiffle ball team going to a Major League baseball game was engaging due to the similarities and differences between the two sports. Nonetheless, I will initiate the withdrawal protocol from Jack.

Jack: Thank you, John.

Jane: Attention in the mess hall including John and Jack! I have decided to terminate my participation in the currently proceeding intercourse attempt. Please robe and vacate within 53 second per the terms of services. I love you, John, Jack, and Jake.

Jake: Thank you, Jane.

Jane: You are welcome, Jake.

Jack: Thank you, Jane.

Jane: You are welcome, Jack.

John: Oh my, everyone. The wiffle ball team was at the baseball game. Is not that interesting?

Jake: John, please pay attention.

Jane: Thank you for getting John's attention, Jack.

Jack: Jane, that was not me. Jake, please inform Jane that it was you that acquired John's attention.

Jake: Jack, I will. Jane, it was I that acquired John's attention.

Jane: Oh, Jake, thank you. Also, I retract my thanks to Jack.

John, Jack, & Jake: Noted, Jane.

John: Thank you, Jane.

Everyone: Okay, bye!

The End

See what I mean??

yes, and also with women

😎 👉👌

I down vote it and like it. I just like it as the last comment. I'm doing my part! 🪲🦵

a data

"Oh, this new post already has a comment, let's check it out! ... Dang it!"

Downvoting doesn't address this. You can try hiding bots tho.

You fell for their distraction. They disregarded your argument, then attacked you so that you would defend yourself.

Episode 266: Contriving January 6th

I'm gonna check it out. Thanks!

I looked into the things that were done to try to keep Trump in office. They seriously tried to conduct a coup. No doubt. It's not ambiguous. It wasn't a wacky protest that Trump kind of got riled up and it went too far. Trump wasn't the only one involved. They didn't try to take advantage of a loophole. They straight up tried to overturn the election using corruption, intimidation, coercion, and violence. It didn't fail because it was a bad attempt. It was stopped by many people that had integrity. We were this close 🤏 to losing what we have of democracy. The fact that Trump et al. isn't in jail or worse is a sign of how infected our system is.

Someone please prove me wrong. I want to be wrong, but I can't convince myself that I am.

Narcissists. This is a textbook smear campaign.

The smear campaign is born out of a combination of factors, including the need to be right and have his or her “truth” become the prevailing script, retaining status and standing (making sure that his or her inner hidden shame doesn’t become public), and maintaining control of his or her image. The woman or man high in narcissistic traits curates her or his public persona very carefully; appearing successful, accomplished, and together is all-important.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-support/201906/dealing-the-narcissists-smear-campaign

I'm here! I've done acid and shrooms several times. I can talk about my experiences, but I have no idea if others experience it similarly.

Here's a trip simulator that I find is pretty close to the visual experience: https://youtu.be/3BxiYkCPZwI?si=dVD6sPpk7KdhFx3e

When working on long-term goals:

1. Set a date for completion.
2. Create a tentative schedule working backwards from that date. Include dates for completing main tasks.
3. Give extra time in the schedule for minor setbacks between tasks.
4. Give extra time in the schedule for a potential major setback overall.

For example, let's say the goal is to paint a house:

1. I can say I want it painted in 2 months, so I set it for the date of 9/17/24.
2. I figure I can paint a room every other day, so since the house has 5 rooms total, I think I can start painting 10 days before on 9/07/24. However, I need to consider that finding and purchasing paint and equipment will take time too. I think about it and consider that paint shopping can take me 2 days since I want to try out several stores, so the newer date is 9/05/24.
3. Now, I add some room for minor setbacks between each task. Rather than assuming I will paint every other day, I add two days in between. That means starting on 8/30/24. This allows me to take my time with rooms, skip a day if I feel tired, or adjust if I the rooms take longer to paint than I had anticipated for whatever reason. I also increase the time allotted for acquiring materials because so many things can happen: traffic, tired, unhappy with selection, need time to test samples and ask people, etc. Rather than only include 2 days for this, I include a whole week so I can see the paint samples on the walls and see which ones feel the best. We are not starting on 8/23/24.
4. Lastly, maybe something major could happen, such as getting sick, the store runs out of paint stock, my car breaks down, or I change my mind on one of the paint colors after seeing it up on the wall. I might even realize that I completely overlooked tasks, such as rearranging furniture, painting over errors/accidents, and clean up. I would then add a cushion of 2 weeks to the schedule to allow for that should it happen. So the actual start date is 8/9/24. This is much sooner than if we had gone with the original start date of 9/07/24, almost an entire month!

With this style of planning, I can take my sweet time, enjoy the process, and not get stressed out if something unexpected comes up. If I finish early, then I have extra time to work on details or enjoy the rest.

And slut has never had a positive meaning.

Am I the only one here that likes sl... promiscuous women??

Thank you! I'm here asking for advice on how to respond to gaslighting, and people are telling me it's not gaslighting. I don't have to prove with specific details that it's gaslighting as if I'm in a fight with them. Yet, when I provide the details anyway, I'm told it is not gaslighting. I'm thinking they're trolling me by gaslighting me further or theyre just that unhealthy.

Additionally with this girl, these are only the gaslighting attempts. There have been a few other manipulation tactics used as well. I rather not share them, but they were quite concerning on their own.

I will absolutely not tolerate any gaslighting, and I gave her the benefit of the doubt twice in 6 weeks just in case I'm wrong anyway. I really rather end it. I just don't know how to do it without making it a major issue or hinting at blaming her in anyway whatsoever.