TeddE

Right? Like half of what I want from these things is when is the battery low? When is the outbox full? When is the feeder empty? And metrics to verify the device is generally operating safely.

Controlling the device? We've known how to do that for 50+ years. Help me maintain the device.

Right? Like - talk about having the luckiest version of XKCD's Ten Thousand!

Unless you we're born with an expensive physical or mental anomaly in a county that has poor healthcare support?

Or you can't be comfortable with the unhoused in your city and you build, run, and operate a private halfway shelter?

Okay - okay - I'll cede. I think were both being hyperbolic. I'm genuinely not convinced that a particular income level makes you a monster, but I can grant that it is a yellow/red flag.

Oh! Is that the new "Science, Technology, Engineering, AI, And Math" Curricula? 🪦

All said, respectable - "live with almost no property at the cheapest rate available" is not terribly bad advice. But again, I think even following that advise would be a higher cost for lots of people in many places in the world.

But is that really the world we want to build? "Okay everyone, aim for the bare minimum?" I know I've been lucky in my life and haven't had to struggle often - but I don't think it's unfair to assume that everyone should be able to enjoy luxuries from time to time.

Or maybe you lived in an environment where some of those expenses were socialized via a broad social net - or you have connections via friends and family that you've underestimated the value of (a friend with a truck is cheaper to buy lunch for than renting movers). If I had reliable access to food shelter transportation and information at negligible costs (assuming ~$800/month constitutes low cost rent), I can totally imagine living within a budget of $15k/year (covering pounds to USD).

However, I used to live in Phoenix but moved due to the rental crisis. Simple clean 1 bedroom apartments are going for $1600/month, which blows your budget in rent alone. (The lowest rate I could find was $750/month, but you had to be officially poor ("restricted income") to qualify).

But before I condemn you in assumptions, maybe I'm wrong - would you be willing to break down your living expenses for those who would follow in your path?

Language is complicated and messy. There's plenty to suggest that for the people that coined the term, they meant for gay to apply to all genders. Then a prominent group of gay women claimed the term lesbian as a specific type of gay woman.

We can argue that lesbian was a specific group of women, not meant to mean all gay women. However, because there's no equivalent 'male only' gay, over time their usage drifted to mean all homosexual men and all homosexual women respectively.

Since language is descriptive, not prescriptive, we can't say the new usage is wrong, just that it's different from what the terms used to mean.

Sucks that our society is structured to make marriage such a large gamble. While the asexual wife thing sucks, I hope you two can connect on other levels for a rich and fulfilling relationship (since it's not all about sex)

To your larger thesis - I agree. The labels we use - "straight", "gay", "bi" rarely match what people think of their own sexuality. Sometimes even when accurate we can chafe at such harsh categories. It's just more complex and nuanced then that. But society just loves it's labels.

What would you think of the term heteroflexible? It carries the idea that as a prince, you might have a harem exclusively of women, yet as a pauper 'any port in a storm' as the expression goes. Or it could mean that you prefer women, but a good blowjob is a good blowjob - regardless of the sex of the lips giving it.

Fair, but the guys a politician - beating dead horses is too often just part of the job.

That's actually a shockingly good point.

This is the correct answer

In my opinion, the original post was "some guy" reviewing their pics and asked "which of these beverage container photos is most photogenic?" - a super casual question, and @[email protected] said "Coke-Cola is evil!" - which is absolutely true.

I tried to carefully reword the question to ask it in an unbranded way - what is @[email protected]'s thoughts if we push past the corporation=bad thought stopper. However I failed - and you, @[email protected], jumped on the new thought stopper "sodastream". I can't say I believe sodastream is as evil as Coke™, but they're also certainly not angels. I'm sure you can argue that case.

But the question wasn't about really about Coke. The question definitely wasn't about SodaStream. The question @[email protected] was asking is "Which drink vessel of mine do you like?" And I don't think you two answered that part of the question. I do love the anti-capitalist messages - but would it hurt either of you to throw Armond1 a bone in your reply to address the aesthetical question they're asking?