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

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.

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’?

Very very few people in this world feel truly attractive, women included. Body image and self-esteem are almost universal problems. This is not your fault.

I suspect this is an issue of perspective. You desire women, so you believe you must be a woman to be desirable. And you desire them for their beauty, so you believe you must be beautiful. This is perspective, not objective truth. Neither has to be true of you. Only if you decide its the only option do you leave yourself with no option at all. At that point, you’ve decided failure for yourself.

If what you want is to feel desirable and you teuly are ‘ugly’ (whatever that means to you), your odds are better if you’re attracted to women. In relationships, women more commonly value non-visible traits like communication, resilience, consideration, humour, and skill. Attraction is more holistic. I’ve known of at least two men getting married with almost no face at all (one taken off by a grizzly bear, the other obscured by large benign growths). Both had kids, too. In a healthy relationship, holistic desire grows.

You are thirsty in the desert, and that’s awful. You fantasise about drowning in the lake because it looks like a solution to your problem, just as those drowning desperately wish they could stand on the solid cracked earth.

Oh, here we just call those ice blocks. As in, ALL of those are called ice blocks in Australia and New Zealand.

There are ice creams on a stick (eg Magnum) which are ice creams in a chocolate shell, but in your picture all those are all very clearly water-based ice blocks.

I’m reminded of someone I know. He felt something similar for a long time. Ultimately he concluded that, for him, what he really wanted was to feel attractive and desirable. And sincr he believed that only women could have that, he spend years conflicted about wanting to be a woman.

After some time around sex-positive people, he had experiences that helped him feel desirable and attractive as a man. He realised that was what he actually wanted, and he’d just been taught beauty was a women-thing and thought he had to be a woman to have it.

Maybe that rings true for you, too. Maybe all you really want is to feel beautiful, wanted, desired. Maybe want you dislike isn’t your gender, but the role society has assigned you for it.

Only you can really figure that out. I just wondered if my friends story would mean something to you… Being trans is a valid answer, but it isn’t the right one for everybody.

I think snowcone if it’s crushed ice with flavour syrup added (though Snowcone might be a brand name that Americans just use for all of them)

Or sorbet if it’s frozen fruit puree

Was thinking of th giant ice block at first, forgot about them scooping health code violations

Tbh I also do this. While my body is in ketosis (eg just woke up) it’s way easier to ignore food drive. The second I taste any good though, my body wakes up like “oh its FOOD time now??” and my appetite rages for the rest of the day.

It’s risky to completely abstain for a long time though, because fat is only calories, not nutrient. You’ll end up with a lot of deficiencies the longer you do it.

I recommend eating a proper meal every now and then, or at least do research on fasting and drink lots of water (prevent kidney stones) and take multivitamin supplements. Consider also asking to your doctor about what you’re doing so they can inform you of risks and how to mitigate them

Women also use dating apps for their own reasons, too. While its true there are a lot of socially inept men on them, I’m uncomfortable with your phrasing. It seems to be blaming men (and not women) for the apps’ existence.

Dating apps are mostly a reflection of a society with poor options for socialising organically. They’re trying to get people connected in a world that makes organic meeting places increasingly expensive or rare, or work hours that are particularly long and limit our energy and free time.

The world is also increasingly hostile to the ‘cold approach’. Dating apps are environments where men know they are allowed to interact with women, snd both can easily disengage from bad matches.That’s especially crucial for the more gentle men that don’t want to make women uncomfortable in the first place, since they would likely never cold approach, or feel uncomfortable admitting interest to their friends and acquaintances.

If the people you thought you were close to have ghosted you and are supporting her instead, consider that she may not be honest about the reasons you are divorced and has convinced them she is the sole victim.

It sounds horrible, and one would hope a true friend would ask for your story first. But it’s pretty common to readily believe the women are the victims in unhealthy relationships, especially of men.

We dont want to judge, dismiss or blame victims, so we readily believe people when they claim to be one. This is especially true of women.

Every time I see this meme format I’m a little frustrated and sad.

A long time ago, Cosmo did a bunch of studies on dating app users. It published a bunch of their results and people have been miscounting it ever since to serve their assumptions.

On dating apps, when one woman matches with one man, 90% of women match with 10% of men. This is largely a result of the app populations, which were and are mostly men. Unless you’re okay with your girl dating ~9 men at once, dating apps will only match a small percentage of men, because that’s how maths works.

When asked to judge dating app profile pictures (no other profile information), women judged men’s pictures lower than men judged women’s. This is as much a factor of the profile pictures we choose as anything else. In addition, men’s match preferences had a strong relationship with their attraction ranks. Whereas for women the relationship was weaker, and the content of the profile was a larger deciding factor. But people hear about the judging profile photos thing and go ‘women are more critical of appearance than men are -> women are shallow’.

When asked ‘what age are [men/women] most atteactive’, women tended to answer close to their own age (with a drop off around 50). Most men said 20-25. But most men saying still typically matched close to their own age. Much like the women with profile pictures, they were trying to answer a direct question with what they believed was a critical, scientific, ‘objective’ answer, rather than reflecting their own dating preferences. But now women fear (or believe) that any men will not find them attractive as they age.

There’s a lot of interesting things in those findings, if you acknowledge it is specifically measuring dating app users, had nuanced findings, and was not scientifically robust in the first place. It’s broad conclusions DO NOT apply to the population as a whole.

And I ache a little each time I see its conclusions reduced and misused to justify misanthropy. Much like the myth of ‘the alpha wolf’, it’s misinformation that refuses to die.

I know a university campus (forget the name) let students build desire paths first while the site was under landscaping, and when they moved onto paving they actually paved the desire paths themselves. It created a funky aesthetic and comfortable spiderweb weaving through the grounds.