I wouldn’t put toilet paper up my nose - I don’t trust other toilet users to not touch the toilet roll and I don’t trust the room to not have fecal particles from lidless flushing on things. I don’t want tu put someone else’s poo up my nose.

I am British and I love this.

You say that because you commit crimes of indecency against confectionary and you like to think of yourself as immune to radicalisation. Don’t kid yourself. Come back to all that is right and good before it’s too late for you.

It’s symptomatic. Symptomatic of the abandonment of all that is proper and decent. Would our great grandparents have eaten candy like this? Would they have celebrated their rebellious ways so boldly? No, they’d have been ashamed. Ashamed of their wicked rule breaking. Rule breaking just for the sake of it. Rule breaking, not for mercy, not in exceptional circumstances, not out of desperation or having no other options, but role breaking just to show off how little respect they have in their hearts.

So yes, yes, people are eating bad candy so incorrectly that you can TELL society is on the point OF COLLAPSE.

This is indicative of a terrible malaise in education, in parenting, in intergenerational transfer of values, in respect and in good manners. No wonder the far right are on the rise, that Naziism is again celebrated. These edgelords will be the first to join the SS, just to shamelessly show off how wicked they are. Have we learned nothing? Are we so quick to repeat history’s darkest mistakes?

See, this is what’s wrong with society today.

I’m happy to let mods carve out a bunch of niche communities with their own preferences. The fediverse is a big place. If you don’t like instances that are protective of LGBT+ folks you’re cutting it down a bit, but genuinely, you seem to be deliberately picking topics that troll the specific community you’re posting on, then you complained that they took it down. Post where your post will be welcome, stop complaining when you post where you already know it’s not. Reddit and twitter are pretty right wing and troll friendly. Maybe you’ll be happier there.

Paint roller

Fair enough, yeah, you don’t want to be reading anything more complicated than a sentence or two, otherwise the might be a risk of developing understanding or perspective. Best avoided.

Sorry to have overestimated your attention span.

Well, whilst I abhor the violent terrorism that Hamas have committed and abhor the overwhelming overreaction and horrific vengence that the state of Israel have, as usual, immediately begun, it’s just not accurate to call what preceded recent events “peace”.

The people I know who have separately and recently visited Israel and Palestine variously called it “viscious apartheid”, “appalling”, “military occupation” and phrases like that. No one called it peace.

I think you erroneously assumed that because it wasn’t in the news, violence was not occurring, whereas I think it’s more accurate to say that it wasn’t in the news because the violence was so everyday and constant that there was nothing new to say about it. A child getting run over by a car won’t make the national news either, for almost exactly the same reason.

OK, let me put it another way. I don’t think there’s a safe amount of incel writing to read and I think that the phrase “involuntary celibate” is loaded with resentment from the start.

I think it’s OK for any of us to be unhappy that we’re not in a sexual relationship, but I strongly believe that categorising onesself as having celibacy imposed is, at the outset, inventing a fictional collective will and conspiracy on the part of a large and nebulous group of people, who are individually and collectively not even slightly responsible for any individual’s or group’s happiness or sex life. As a self-label, it inexorably leads to blaming others.

It’s true that some teenaged girls can be powerfully cruel, dismissive, hurtful and nasty to boys who take an interest in them, and at those times, those girls are guilty of psychologically damaging the teenaged boys they have emotionally attacked, but they are still not in any way whatsoever responsible for anybody’s sex life nor in any way whatsoever for the lack thereof.

It’s also an oxymoron. The word celibate is only correctly used for someone who has chosen to abstain from sex for some reason (usually religious). It’s logically impossible to involuntarily abstain, because abstinence is a choice but definition. For example, if you are ineligible to vote or someone prevents you somehow from boring, you aren’t abstaining. You are only abstaining if you can vote but choose not to.

So, in summary, involuntary celibate is a phrase that deliberately twists meaning and twists morality, placing responsibility and blame on a group of people who are neither responsible or to blame.

You claim that involuntary celibate has a real, obvious and clear meaning, but I disagree with everything in that assertion. Involuntary abstinence is meaningless as a concept, lacks clarity of thought and obscures meaning. The actual real, but hidden and non-obvious meaning in the phrase is (erroneously and fictionally) that women are to blame for men’s lack of sex, so in fact the meaning of the phrase is far from obvious and real, as evidenced by your mistaken belief that it’s a neutral term. It’s a term born in hatred and designed to foster blame and hatred.

You might well believe that you’re using it innocently and I’m good faith, and if so, please realise that you’re very much at risk of being drawn into a hate group.

You are, I’m afraid, deluding yourself if you think that you’re one of the non-racist MAGA fans, just as you’re deluding yourself if you think you’re an incel who isn’t incorrectly blaming other people for your lack of sex or that you aren’t on the road to toxic misogyny with that way of thinking.

There are many things wrong with society, with gender relationships, and with dating expectations, but women and men’s absulote freedom to not have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they feel isn’t one of them.

What’s your definition of MAGA, just make America great again, or also election denial?

But if prices don’t go up, the profits won’t increase! Why doesn’t anybody think of the poor shareholders, trying to barely eke out an income from their holdings?

True. But the word Monad has done more harm to the accessibility, popularity and reputation of pure functional programming than pretty much anything else.

Yeah, I could have said circle rather than curve of constant normal intersection points, but that word is very commonly understood, so it’s not that same as unnecessarily calling something a Monad. Maybe it’s the equivalent of calling it a 2-manifold instead of a wheel.

Perhaps just ditch the generalisation, then, and just call them Result or Maybe. After all, circle is a short word, but we just call them wheels.

Don’t call it a monad, call it a structured data type or something, that’s what it is! Calling it a monad is like saying that you’re using a curve of constant normal intersection point. Why not just say it’s a wheel?

Yes, it’s mathematically true that you’re having a smooth ride precisely because the normals have a constant intersection point, but it’s also true to say that it’s a wheel and it goes round and isn’t bumpy and doesn’t scrape, and people can get a handle on that.

So yeah, use a Result or Option or Maybe structured data type because it keeps explicit track of whether there’s a value or not, and yeah, you can change or combine them and preserve the tracking, but there’s no point calling it a monad unless you’re trying to make people believe that avoiding the $1bn mistake of allowing/using null requires category theory. It doesn’t, it’s just a structured data type. It’s simpler than an array! Stop calling it a monad.

The pedantic nerd in me wants to compare half of the building with the woman, or just the bit right next to the heart to the bit right next to the cabinet.

…

In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google’s search advertising “is one of the world’s greatest business models ever created” with economics that only certain “illicit businesses” selling “cigarettes or drugs” “could rival.”

…

Beyond likening Google’s search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak’s notes also said that because users got hooked on Google’s search engine, Google was able to “mostly ignore the demand side” of “fundamental laws of economics” and “only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales.” This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ.

Well, universal, anyway.

This might be the best dog photo I’ve ever seen on the Internet. Thanks for posting.

I don’t think I have an iron in this fire, but I do think that filtering some crap out of a gullible person’s Internet feed is way kinder and way healthier than cutting them out of your life completely.