pachrist

Bring back this and the throne room decorations.

The scary thing is that she is only 31 years old, but she now has the face of a 60 year old who's desperately trying to look 45.

I don't know who her surgeon was, but she should sue.

I think this is a case where the imagination is much, much better than the reality.

For the mobilization of technology, miniaturization has had a lot of benefits, not just in the technology, but in the accessibility. Having a desktop computer instead of a mainframe was huge. It brought the computer to the home. Laptops becoming viable was huge again. It untethered the computer from the wall. For most of the planet, we're still in the midst of the massive leap that is smart phones. It put a computer in the pocket of billions of people.

Beating that is hard. Smart phones are the most accessible, most powerful devices most end users have ever used. We take that for granted, and we take the time it took to get there for granted. It took 25 years of desktops to get real, decent laptops (personally, I'd say mid 90s). It took 25 of laptops to get real, decent smartphones (again personally, I'd say ~2010ish).

Like it or not, we have another decade to go probably before the technology is there for the next evolution in personal computing. But the problem we have really is that there's not another leap as far as accessibility is concerned. Smart phones work places where laptops can't. Laptops work places where desktops can't. Desktops work places where mainframes can't. Smart phones can work anywhere. Taking the computer from the datacenter, to the home, to your backpack, to your pocket is huge. Is the next step from the pocket to your wrist? To your face? Is it worth it? Is it really that much better?

Otherwise this reads as if ~~some LLM~~ 4chan came up with the idea

Remember kids, updating to iOS 7 enables your phone to charge wirelessly in the microwave.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

"Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’

Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I have always loved how simply Jesus spells it out.

As a kid, I always felt it was so implausible that the Jews would kill Jesus. Yes he claims to be God, which is a no-no, but how can a message of peace and love be so divisive? As an adult, I've come to realize that it's divisive to people who are angry and filled with hate, to people who hate peace and love. The Pharisees of 30CE are the exact same as most Christians today. If you walked in to some Trump country Baptist church today and flipped over the collection plates and told everyone there they were going to hell because the want to deport immigrants instead of help them, you'd be shot for sure.

They're right though. This was the plan. Hard to do market manipulation without manipulating the market.

Is it surprising that the people who thought Mexico would pay for a border wall also don't understand how tariffs work?

Same, but when I began really looking at it and trying to overcome it, I found it's a very universal experience, certainly not divided by gender.

When you look at these odd archetypes of what people want out of the ideal man or woman, they all share the same core. Strong, independent, doesn't need help, doesn't want help. The individualistic experience is such a sad, lonely, miserable, experience. They want to be able to go it alone, but in hundreds of thousands of years of truly human existence, going it alone is such an exception. Our weights and burdens and lives are meant to be shared. They always have been and always will be.

For example, I have a 4 year old son who has been infatuated with ballet for a couple months now. There are dads today who are beating their sons for liking ballet. It's terrible. But it's not that ballet is "queer" or that men don't do ballet. There are plenty of men who are queer. There are plenty of men who do ballet. But, I don't do ballet. If I beat my son, it's because I am making it about myself. I don't want a son who does ballet. That is as narcissistic and individualistic as it gets.

That's not to say that it's not toxic masculinity, just that the toxic masculinity is narcissism in a trench coat.

I have two.

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity or toxic femininity. There is only toxic individualism.

Sometimes, you shouldn't be yourself. The person you are might be awful. Bullying and societal pressure correcting you to a norm can be a good thing.

This just in: man who despises empathy struggles to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

Yeah, but the second something juicy happens, we all scroll back and get caught up pretty quickly.