MountingSuspicion

The math makes the issue clear: There is no universal "right" number of clothes.

Saved you a click.

The EU came up with number of wears needed to offset the impact of an article of clothing. They suggest 40-45 for tops and 70 for bottoms. The article seems to suggest that these are perceived as high numbers, but I've had clothes for years that I've worn way more than that and so have most people I know. I may on occasion get a top for an event that I will likely not wear often, like for a themed party, and I have some formal wear I've maybe worn 10 times over the years, but who regularly buys a shirt they don't plan to wear at least that often?

I'm saying Trump should be held accountable. I already called this a witch hunt.

Your original comment can apply equally to them both. That's the problem. Why do we care how old someone is? Either the investigation politically motivated therefore wrong regardless of his age, or it's justified and we should seek justice regardless of people's age.

So once Trump leaves office he should not face accountability? Age and health are irrelevant. They are targeting Biden because they are lying idiots who can't get over the fact Trump lost, but Bidens age has nothing to do with that. If Biden were 40 it'd still be a problem.

I'm not both sidesing anything. I said it was a witch hunt. I'm just saying that his age and health are irrelevant. I want Trump investigated for his crimes and the idea that someone thinks he'd be too old or sick to face justice is ridiculous. The issue with this investigation is that it's a political farce, not that Biden is old.

I said it was a witch hunt. I don't think a crime was actually committed, but this line of thinking is why Weinstein went to court with a walker. I do not care how old or sick or frail someone is. Acting like that's at all relevant seems to completely miss the point. My point is that if they did this to Biden or Obama it makes no difference because the issue isn't age or health, it's the nature of the investigation.

Trump is 80 and clearly unwell. Being old and sick is not a reason to escape accountability. This seems like a pretty obvious witch hunt, but I'm just as happy to hold someone accountable who has lived a long life getting away with a crime than someone who just recently committed one.

Wonder what people think of:

“We have no ideological agenda,” reads the document shared with WIRED by a past participant. “Dialog is nonpartisan and nonpolitical. We want all participants to come away with a better understanding of the truth—but we don’t presume to know what the truth is. We simply believe that when we bring together open-minded people who are at the top of their fields, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, they will learn new things.”

I have definitely been to events with people who have a variety of political opinions, but I'm not sure I want to be in any Thiel backed group. I certainly wouldn't pay to attend a social gathering where prominent people that I think are basically evil will be.

Eric Taylor, the city manager, refused to turn the water on to this location. Yes, there was community involvement, but one person was able to stand up and make the right decision. Once that decision was made, others were able to support it. Local officials really matter and can make a huge impact.

They never said "the best we can do is offer you stuff targeted at girls because, you know, you're essentially a girl anyway", you did. If you think there should be more stuff for certain men, you're free to make it. If not all men relate to that content, I hope they are more capable of nuance than you seem to be. The idea that relating to the experience of another group somehow takes away from your actual identity is not how someone who has a normal relationship with their identity would work.

I date women as a woman and sometimes men will be talking specifically to other men about dating women and I will find what they say relatable. It does not make me question my gender or sexuality. I just think "wow! So true!" and move on with my day.

It's ok to have a similar experience or understanding of the world as someone else, even if they are not talking directly to or about your personal experience.

They are not drawing a line. You're welcome to comment what you like, but this is straight "so you hate waffles?" level of reasoning.

I wouldn't recommend the read.

The writer seems to want to come across as hesitantly drawn in, but ultimately seeking more. What it actually comes across as is a bit of a glaze tempered by a writer who knows what they're doing. It feels like a testament to their ability and makes it clear how/why they profile celebrities for a living.

She mentions the AI had a visual glitch of an inflating head which makes her seem like an impartial reporter, only to bring attention to how that was fixed within a day. Maybe I'm not accustomed to someone being so forgiving with AI, and I'm not familiar with celeb profiles in general, but this gives "apolitical" vibes. She ends it with a little tribute to art from real people, but the interview basically skirts around this even though the creator is there the whole time also involved in the interview.

I can't copy/paste off the site, but there are occasions where the AI provides a response that doesn't really make sense but the writer refers to like it does. I'm struggling to identify if this is a covert dig at the AIs ability to understand context, if I am not understanding, or the writer is not communicating well.

All in all it's a well written piece with nothing to say and likely only serves to get the name circulating. Not quite a fluff piece, but it's what I imagine a smart writer would suggest as a fluff piece.

You not understanding the sentence makes sense if you are not familiar with the way people speak about it day-to-day. It would be like asking what the point of a no kings protest is, considering America doesn't actually have a king. It's OK to not understand or ask the question, but people locally understand what they are saying. It's not a failing of the original commenter that an international audience doesn't follow their complaint about local politics.

I'm not asking or expecting you to keep up with all the acronyms, but accusing someone of lying about being American because you don't understand what they are talking about as a non American is just a weird thing to do.

When they are talking about the electoral college in that sense, they are likely talking about the fact that in Trump's first run if we did not have the electoral college he would have lost. He lost the popular vote, and the distribution of those votes via the electoral college is what actually caused the win. Again, this is a pretty common talking point in the United States.

I think when they mean "the land" they are referring to a pretty common argument about how not all votes count equally because of the way states are populated and congresspeople are appointed. Someone living in a city in California has diluted voting power compared to someone in Alaska because of population density. This is often reduced to a pithy refrain about "the land" getting votes.

I do agree that being upset that stupid people get to vote is not pro democracy.

"Convicted felon" is something Trump is. That term has nothing to do with serving time, despite the word "convict" sometimes meaning that. People would often type out "convicted felon Donald Trump" and this was shortened. Clearly you were able to deduce from context clues what they were talking about.

EC is a pretty common abbreviation for "electoral college" when already talking about politics.

The fact you're unfamiliar with the landmass argument and EC and they are casually using them seems to indicate that they are more familiar with US political culture and contributes to the idea they are not lying about their location.

I don't know where you're from, but if you're keen on protecting trumps image I'd do some introspection.