But then why spend so much money on a phone? I also don’t care about the specs of my phone, but this means I usually buy some $100 phone that gets the job done for a couple years.
I genuinely don’t see a reason why someone would buy an iPhone besides as a fashion accessory/ status symbol
There’s also quite a bit of English, eg.
Window -> vindu
Leather (animal skin) -> skinn
Yes, terminal means “end” or similar. Eg. “Terminal cancer”, “the airport terminal” etc. same root word as"terminate"
I’m not sure how the survey was phrased to participants, but to me a “hobby” is a regular thing someone does, as their way to pass the time/have fun. I’ve smoked before and have no problem with it, but I do think I would find it less attractive for it to be someone’s hobby, as opposed to an occasional social thing they do.
Similarly I have no problem with people watching porn, but if it’s gone far enough for it to be considered their hobby, then that is less attractive to me, which also matches the chart.
I might be misunderstanding the word hobby, but so might many of the survey participants.
Often the best opportunities in life are the scariest
total overkill
One might consider it the nuuklear option
MQTT is great! There are clients available in Python, JS, etc
I’m sorry but how is a couple million “not rich”
This doesn’t answer the question at all though?
Is the entity an immortal snail?
Even though they have spread across Europe, I think most countries still have dramatically less of these chain restaurants than in the US
Honestly her liking him or just pretending is irrelevant. Start by learning “offering to rub someone’s feet (or any other somewhat intimate touching) is NOT a good way to flirt, even if they do like you!”
Norway. There are many reasons, but the big big one for me is the absolutely incredible nature AND the ability to properly enjoy it via Wildcamping. Being able to simply venture out into the forest for a weekend is such a nice thing.
To be fair, this applies to any bed
I like this, but I think that the goal to be tested must be a set of tests which are agreed upon by a large majority, not just the current party in power. That way there can be tests as to how effective the law is, but also tests whether it is having other unwanted side effects.
A pot plant which he might try take care of for a while before realising it’s plastic, but has already grown attached to it.
But where are you basing your definition of “fairness”? If you exclude people with a biological advantage, since that would be unfair, then literally all current athletes would be excluded, since by qualifying for the Olympics they have proven that they have a strong biological advantage over the average person.
No matter what arbitrary divisions are in place, be that gender or weight or race or whatever, there will always be people who dominate the field. That doesn’t destroy the Olympics as a sport competition, that is the Olympics as a sport competition. Competing in order to find the best of the best, the “freaks of nature” who manage to far surpass the average person.
I’m currently reading a book which argues that “most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent”. It’s really good, highly recommend to anyone. It’s called “Human Kind” by Rutger Bregman
deleted by creator