For me personally, I want to limit interactions with my phone by
reading notifications on my wristincreasing interactions with my watch
That just sounds like interactions with your phone but with extra steps.
For me personally, I want to limit interactions with my phone by
reading notifications on my wristincreasing interactions with my watch
That just sounds like interactions with your phone but with extra steps.
Hey, man. You dropped this: 👑
No. Did you read step one?
That’s a easy solution, here are the steps:
Step 1: Do not purchase a smart TV
Step 2: Yay, you did it! You did all the steps. 🥳
Edit: People are missing the point. This is a joke.
Here’s another joke: It’s a pity that a TV is a necessary item to live.
Isaac Newton was a life time bachelor.
It would be cool if these graphs could be inflation adjusted.
Because otherwise you need to raise awareness and bring people to your side.
Taking individual action can be part of raising awareness if done publicly. Riding a bike around your community is an act against climate change, and an awareness campaign simultaneously.
“Line go up” is the animating force of the
agethe rich and powerful, the critical philosophical principal around whichour entire societytheir livesisare arranged.
I choose not to confuse their values as mine or that of my community.
how do you envision change happening?
By taking action. Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words.
https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalfiles/portal/194583123/WP24_5
The figure shown appears on page 9 (page 12 of the full document linked).
Let me reply in a language you will understand:
01000100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01001100 01100101 01101101 01101101 01111001 00101110
the replies would be filled with
peoplebots claiming it is the best customer service
There are no women people on the internet.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not stupid
I wouldn’t put that past me.
I understand the cool down period.
600 upvoters and counting got it just fine.
Good for them. Twist the “you’re an idiot” knife a bit more, there’s plenty of space in the small of my back.
So, again, who the hell says “activity” instead of “already hung out with someone”?
Is the part of the joke that the person is dysfunctional in turning people down? Wouldn’t a healthy introvert turn someone down in an appropriate manner?
A well regulated person could say something like:
“already did that with someone/you recently”. I’ll catch up with you another time.
You are being downvoted because you are basically saying that if you relate to the joke, there’s something wrong with you and you need help.
That is incorrect, and kinda offensive. You made a lot of people feel like you think they are fucked in the head.
Lets review.
The joke has the premise that an introvert did an activity yesterday. Let go with a mundane activity: doing the dishes.
The punchline is that because the introvert did an activity (even a non-social activity), they are now prevented from catching up with a friend for several days.
I assume that this is a dysfunctional person. But you’re telling me that this is okay, and not dysfunctional.
You’re using the New York Times to support the idea that the New York Times didn’t support the war.
What do you think could be an issue with using that evidence?
Edit: I find it amusing that the article you shared is partially blocked (censored) unless I sign up to the NYT.
These sources show that the New York Times supported the war because it poorly reported the idea that Iraq had WMDs. The NYT did not do its due dilligence, intentionally mislead the public, or a mix of factors.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-york-times-role-in-promoting-war-on-iraq-20040323-gdilbl.html
Yeah, he already covered “poorly aimed or not aimed at all.”