She’s wearing shorts (or possibly leotard), you can see the hem between butt and thigh

I figured it’s an issue with hagglers that haggle for haggling sake, and not about the value of the item.

If I want to sell something on marketplace, I put the price up, because I know somebody will ask for a big discount for a quick sale. I’m happy to move this faded couch set for $100, then I’m listing it for $200… and selling it for $100 to a person who offers to pick it up, too.

It’s that kind of reasoning and makes haggling pointless imo, because sellers either don’t take your lowball or they knew you’d lowball and charged high to start with so they have room to negotiate.

But as that one JC Penny guy accidentally proved, people love the illusion of good deals more than they love good value.

I’m reminded of a story somebody shared on reddit years ago.

An arborist, working with his team. One of his crew had the chainsaw kick and come back and severely main him. He’s bleeding so fucking fast. They need to get him to hospital, and they can’t afford to wait for the ambulance to arrive.

The woman in front won’t let them past. She’s going slower and slower to make a point. They’re honking at her, but she lines up with another lane to box them in. That car slows down too.

The guy is fading fast.theyre using his shirt to staunch the blood, but it’s not enough. After several minutes, they finally have an opening they can take. They speed past her little car, throwing the bloodsoaked shirt out the window to slap wetly on her windshield.

They meet up with emergency services - first, a cop. The woman pulls over to talk to the cop about their reckless driving. While arguing, the ambulance arrives. The injured crew member, and the storyteller, are taken to hospital.

It’s too late. He dies.

…don’t fuck around man. You never know. It’s no worth it. Do the safe thing and make space or pull over. Safety over spite.

I hear thats what European Truck Simulator 1, 2, and American truck simulator are excellent for. Driving around on long roads with meditative scenery.

Maybe there’s another half of an article behind a paywall somewhere, because it doesn’t look like they’re asking for anything at all. They just described the accident, and then emphatically described how hard the recovery process is. It’s little more than a diary entry.

Researchers dont get paid. In fact, they usually have to pay to be published on reputable platforms. Those platforms are the ones charging.

As for why they publish there if they never profit, academic success is dependant on publishing (“published or perish”), so academics will pay to advance in their field, potentially getting funding for future studies. (Not from the publisher, obviously; but from grant programmes that only fund you if you have a body of work already.)

This is why if you contact a researcher directly, they’ll likely be willing to give you the finished thesis for free.

I have ADHD and like en and em dashes. I’ve been known to use emoji points to make my 16 paragraphs easier to read.

Fortunately I think the constant personal tangents arr saving me

AFAIK this fucks with artists, not Spotify.

Spotify doesn’t pay artists a flat amount per stream. Instead, Spotify’s profits are split between artists based on their streams. A single user heavily streaming is imperceptibly lowering ‘revenue per stream’ by increasing overall streams but only paying for one subscription.

By playing a bunch of songs, all you do is give those artists slightly more, and other artists slightly less – at least in theory. In practice you’re probably not steaming enough to change overall percentages.

So if anything, you are moving profit to support the artists that Spotify is promoting by putting in your ‘radio’. Which likely means instead of going to small undiscovered musicians, it goes towards popular established ones that Spotify assumes you’ll like.

But since this is probably not enough to move those percentages, you’re only messing up your own algorithm.

Where’s us weirdos that like to eat 1-3 at a time by one sticking to our tongue like a frog

ESU is inherently bullshit. So they’re going to make security upgrades for the OS millions of people are using, but you only get them if you pay? Even though they’re committing dev time to make and deploy them, the SECURITY upgrades to the OS yhat millions have already paid for?

What a grift. Either you’re paying ESU and there’s no dev work (free moneyyy!) or it’s literally a ‘protection fee’ for dev work they’re doing anyway (nyeehhh nice PC ye got there, be a shame if we extorted you for it)

Oh, they’re here. Our parking spaces aren’t big enough for American cars, so they park as far back as the curb will let them – you can see their towballs lining the paths like tripmines.

Gor a chuckle out of a ‘ute’ with the empty bed pulling a trailer with the tradie’s gear in it though. Awww, your two-cab lifestyle ute’s open bed too small for a 2x4 there buddy?

While thats also true, Im talking about reading comprehension, not Poe’s Law.

If you’re using "s, it indicates that it’s not something you’re actually saying. You’re quoting somebody else, including a hypothetical person that you’re satirising. It’s explicitly saying they’re not your real words.

That’s an issue of reading skill, and while we can certainly work to make writing more accessible for those that aren’t great at it, I don’t appreciate how people blame the writer for the treatment they receive for what is, at best, a mutual misunderstanding.

It’s gotten bad enough that I can say in the comment the person I am satirising, and again in a concluding statement. But without the ‘/s’, people still accuse me of being a monster for believing a heinous thing I deliberately used provocative language to describe.

This craps everywhere now man. A friend was looking up paint colours for her house for the biggest paint company in the country, and the one she chose was recommended to give her home a murky and rancid feel. Like at that point, don’t give individual colours descriptions at all!

If those "s were already in your comment, you shouldn’t have needed it :/ satire on the internet is getting harder to make I guess

That’s just the money their making itself. When it comes down to what are we subscribing for, it keeps being ads again. They keep deciding that subscriptions make money by removing ads.

Like, why not subscriptions that actually add something gainful? Subscribe to stream your games to any TV, subscribe to get dog food delivered to your house monthly, subscribe to Socks of the Month Club. Those things exist in other industries, but tech?? Nope, it’s just ads, or subscribe to less ads.

The entire movie is immersion therapy for those who suffer second-hand embarrassment.

Except one character that was genuinely fun. And a crack to the didgy-donch!

deleted by creator

Although they hypothesised that petroleum/synthetic gum would have more, the article says the conclusion: the amount of mucroplastics were actually the same for both organic and synthetic gums. (Though It doesn’t state clearly if it’s low trace amounts from the environment, or just a big ol’ stick of plastic and nothing else).

So if it bothers you, you should avoid all gums. But also, literally ALL our food has plastics in it now. All of it. Even fresh vegetables.

The Master of Disguise.

I uhh, can’t really say its good tbh.

Are techbros so bland that they really can’t think of literally any fucking way to make money that isn’t just ‘ads’?