JayDee

Bruh i'm bald. I don't use shampoo period. I use what's supposed to be a healthy-skin face wash, and i just apply it by hand (no sponge or anything).

If anything I'd guess diet is the biggest thing, but I'm climbing regularly and not eating my current protein-heavy diet leaves me hella sore and out of energy, so i don't feel like experimenting with my diet ATM.

Title's hard click bait. It leads up to talking about Arrow's Impossibility theorem, which sets forth some explicit rules for defining a fair election, and communicates that all finite-vote systems are dictatorships that fail to meet those criteria, including ranked choice voting. Arrow's theorem also uses 'dictatorship' in a pretty weird technical fashion, meaning that one individual can technically sway any election with their sole choices.

Directly after, though, Veritasium does acknowledge that Duncan Black pokes holes in the actual value of Arrow's theorem, by showing that many ordinal voting systems will still favor majority preference, and that Arrow's theorem does not apply to rated voting systems like approval voting and STAR voting.

It's pretty bizarre that he decided to make such a click-baity title and front-load only skim over the better solution at the end, right near election month.

I'll trust that's true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.

Bugtoat. It toats bugs.

Gimme an ASCII character for it. We can replace the bitcoin character with it

Different bodies different care. I constantly ooze thick oily sweat and if I don't shower I start getting bad acne. Also, just massive amounts of musky BO if I don't reapply deodorant every day.

It's nasty but it's just how my body do ATM. Gotta shower daily.

Same, I live in a smaller city that has wide sidewalks. You slow down when approaching pedestrians and blind corners, stop at crosswalks, etc. It's alot lower risk in general.

The idea that we lump bikes in with cars, as if every biker is some competitive racer who has to go 40 on their bike, is ridiculous, and opens bikers up to being killed by cars. On the sidewalk, the chance of a crash is lower, an DM the results of crashes minor in comparison. Its a no-brainer for me.

If my city had fully founded bike lanes that didn't merge into the main road, though, I'd switch to those in a heartbeat.

Voter intimidation sounds exactly right here. Like he's telling his voters to stay away so anyone they attack is probably a non-follower of his

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it's not really 'your fault'. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The 'right one' will come along when you are more socially able an mm you'll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get 'bought', you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing's kind of terrible in general because of that. I've tried bumble and it's pretty much a similar thing.

There's this thing sometimes called the 'predator/prey relationship model' by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and 'pounce' them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman's approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It's a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.

I don't see much problem with this. It's one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That's what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.

It's kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don't think you're a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.

My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they're all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can't consent to it.

This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as 'mutilation' which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as 'cosmetic' and still allow them.

I think it's kind of hilarious some of the insanely close conclusions some ancient philosophers got to being correct.

For example, Xenophanes observed that there were fossils of fish and shells, and correctly concluded that Greece was at one point underwater. He also had a bunch of insane claims on top of that, but the underwater part was correct.

His teacher, Anaximander actually said humans came from fish, which is hilariously close to correct despite the incorrect reasoning.

Empedocles is probably the most interesting. He concluded that humans and animals originated from these disembodied organs, which found each other and would form wholes. The catch was that many weird forms came about, like people with heads in the center of their bodies, and any other creation you can think of from just slapping animal organs together. He asserted that the forms which were unfit for life died out, leaving only the ones which worked to continue living. Empedocles almost describes a concept adjacent to multicellular organisms forming from single-celled symbiotic relationships (obviously Empedocles didn't know about bacteria or cell theory), and then goes on to pretty accurately describe the mechanisms of natural selection.