Likely, the difference is in the level of threat.
I'm sure that's part of it, but there's another. Women do lots of things for self-facing vanity. A woman will wear yoga pants to show off to herself and boost self-confidence. They'd wear them to the gym even if it was vacant, because it gives them the feeling of looking the part of a fit woman working out at the gym.
If you understand that, the rest falls into place. She's going to wear them either way for self-image. If she's putting herself on camera, it's because she wants to show off to others. If she's at the gym, she might be there to show off to others or she might be oblivious to those around her and then taken aback when she realizes they're focused on her.
It doesn't make sense to men, because men would consider the location, the people who would be present, how their own appearance would interact with the location, etc. Women go, "I want to wear this. I want to do that."
Kids want to be edgy and gritty because they're in a rush to mature.
Adults are familiar with the unpleasant realities of the mature world and wish for a carefree world of sweetness and innocence.
Grass is always greener + fantasy escapism. Not that complicated.
The ideology isn't, but the result is. It's a philosophy that only works when there are natural barriers. When coast-to-coast travel in America was a six month ordeal and there were 50m people in the nationwide? Great ideology. Work with the few people within a day's ride when they need it and respect one another's autonomy otherwise.
Once the tech existed for foreigners to flood in across the border, even overseas, at minimal cost? It became a completely obsolete ideology.
it also projects the stale feminist stereotype that "it's all the man's fault."
Assuming the text of the letter posted in this thread is accurate, it doesn't explicitly indicate the sex of either party. There's obviously some linguistic cues, but it's not as if men leaving control freak women is rare.
I've heard that Gen Z does not like rock music
Who or where did you hear that from? That's the first thing to ask. Plenty of people in the thread have mentioned how the media tries to engineer people's tastes, but they also try to engineer how you view other demographics. Driving a wedge between generations is a great divide and conquer tactic to prevent critical mass among any group.
Also, pay close attention to the distinction between not liking and not knowing. If you see a headline like, "Gen Z doesn't want to listen to rock music," it's likely they polled, "what do you like to listen to," and the respondents were unfamiliar with rock music. Then the author wanted something vaguely true, but sensational to bait engagement. That kind of thing is a favorite trick of the media.
There are other sports leagues out there that don't hate their audience as much as the NFL. A parallel move is fine. It's the deliberate fostering of tribal belonging that's the real problem. The people who feel an allegiance to "their team," as if they actually had a relationship to them.
Pro sports fans are essentially the parasocial streamer relationship thing at scale.
Edit: Also the marketing op around the Superbowl as a social event/tradition to make sure people still put eyeballs on their product out of peer pressure. Another +1 for your drug analogy.
But this is more inclusive! It gives viewers an option for an English-language halftime performance.
Really though, fuck the entire concept of modding the event to make it tolerable. Just walk away from the NFL already. It's like the people who will pay money for games that hate them because someone "fixed" it after the fact.
Space is. Earth orbit is much less big than space. It's still big, but when a satellite breaks up there are a lot of pieces and they are all moving very fast. With specific orbits being desirable for certain tasks. For anything communicating with the ground, everyone wants to be in LEO for less latency which has the least space because geometry.
As reference, there's only about 15k satellites active right now.
The students aren’t exactly cheating and if they are, can you blame them?
They absolutely are and I can.
Stanford has made gaming the system the logical choice. When accommodations mean the difference between a cramped triple and your own room, when extra test time can boost your grade point average, opting out feels like self-sabotage. Who would make their lives harder when the easiest option is just a 30-minute Zoom call away?
Any decent person would. And you're a piece of shit for framing that decision as if scamming is the default position and not cheating is an active departure from it.
This is a direct result of destroying a high-trust society, which was a deliberate consequence of "multi-culturalism." If you have no morality and everyone in selfish competition, you can sell them anything.
All that aside, this other article of hers is interesting: https://archive.is/WTNO4
It is distressing that 380 people being taken hostage by islamic terrorists gets zero coverage in the media. As long as it's not so close that they can't hide it, they brush it under the rug.
That should have been world news, even if it happened in India.
Damn. Jimi was only nominated once and for "Best Contemporary Instrumental Performance."
To be fair, that year he lost to a sort of best-of album of Henry Mancini. A guy who did hundreds of iconic TV/movie scores. Fucking weird matchup. Also, Jimi died before the ceremony.
Protip: A lot of those realty websites don't expose things like crime maps, but they do tell you the nearest schools and possibly link to a "GreatSchools" rating. Click the nearest schools and look at the "Student Demographics." Roundabout, but answers the question.
To test, I took a red crime, Tyrone cluster from op site in Charlotte NC. I found a 2 bed, 2 bath condo for $837k. Nearest schools are:
High: 58% White, 21% Black, 15% Hispanic
Middle: 42% White, 40% Black, 12% Hispanic
Elementary: 75% Black, 15% Hispanic, 3% White
And the elementary school is the geographically closest of the 3. For $837k.
That's why I mentioned "General Purpose." Someone selling "AI therapists" will have a big incentive. But less so for ones without that focus. They won't care if you're happy, depressed, or curious about pandas as long as you're engaging.
But you're right about "AI therapists." They'll have the same incentives as normal therapists.
And no, I dont want to know.
Too bad, but I'll give you the most condensed version possible: drama that drove a giant wedge between gamers vs woke bloggers and indie devs. Was the catalyst for the creation of this board as an alternative for discussing shit like that after we got sick of Reddit's faggotry.
Is Evander Holyfield a whole food?