![](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/edcf7755-5bf6-4735-8a6f-9a705910410d.webp)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d82718c7-5579-4676-8e2e-97b4188f10d3.png)
Yeah, that’s part of the reason why I just dealt with the pain whenever I was prescribed stuff like Vicodin. I don’t want to risk it at all.
Yeah, that’s part of the reason why I just dealt with the pain whenever I was prescribed stuff like Vicodin. I don’t want to risk it at all.
I’ve seen plenty of people who think they could take hard, addictive drugs and not get addicted, or that the addiction would be a small price to pay for the highs of the drug. Plenty of people have far too much self confidence for their small understanding of the situation. It’s why drugs like heroin are still around; if everyone intrinsically understood that they’re not worth it, they’d have disappeared a long time ago.
My wife and I usually plan big vacations about a year in advance so that we can follow flight prices and whatnot to get a good deal. We also book a few days at a cabin for our anniversary every year, so we just book the next year’s reservation while we’re there, since reservations can fill up even several months in advance.
Only planning a week in advance seems stressful to me - we planned a last-minute (for us) road trip vacation earlier this month for the long 4th of July weekend, and it was tough to find cheap places to stay that weren’t super grungy.
Yeah, it’s specifically because they’re trying to increase profits for so long that they need to get so incredibly meticulous and complicated with how their business works. Companies that just try to earnestly provide a desired service to people who need it in their area of operation don’t need to worry about such details.
I didn’t really see people mentioning that “would” can still be used past-tense outside of “would have,” though it’s not in the same way - you use it when talking about something that happened multiple times in the past. For example, “When I was a kid my friends and I would go to the pool every Saturday,” which means that, as children, my friends and I did visit the pool every Saturday.
Microsoft was screwing over consumers before Google was even founded.
The robot was my favorite. I liked making him blow up and come back.
I’ve always felt that republicans were the ones to push pronouns mattering, to the point of obstinance; they frequently get worked up about people’s genders, and refuse to use pronouns that differ from what they believe to be the “correct” ones for a person. The lefter people understand that pronouns really only matter to the person who identifies with them, so we’re fine calling people whatever they want, since it’s their choice and we don’t really care what they choose in the end.
Yeah. Obviously if a candidate is a criminal that should invalidate them in the eyes of any sane voter, but really the bar should be a lot higher for anyone to be happy with their choice. The real motivation shouldn’t be to vote for the lesser of 2 evils and call it good enough, it should be to literally fight back against corruption until we have options we actually like. Obviously it’s too late for that in this election, but we should already be getting started in the fights to get someone worthwhile in the 2028 elections.
I’m not trying to claim superiority for never having dropped a phone - I understand that different people have different needs, and one of them is a phone that can survive frequent falls. However, I also recognize that features that myself and others use regularly are often removed from models that emphasize durability, whether or not their removal is actually helping, or just cutting costs. So I don’t want to push phone manufacturers to focus so much on that one feature - that is important to some, but not to others - that they end up removing features that are equally important to certain people.
That’s exactly my point. Different people have different needs, so while OP is right that there should be phones for themselves and yourself that address the fact that a significant portion of the population drop their phones regularly, my own needs follow a different hierarchy that benefits from a separate set of features.
The fact that phones are all kinda just the same, with any changes made to one model frequently rippling through to other models from other manufacturers in time, is an issue. The customization to phones shouldn’t only apply to external features like cases and dongles.
I got my first cell phone in middle school, and I knew that if it broke I wasn’t getting another one, so I made sure to hold it securely when using it, since I didn’t want to drop and break it. When I eventually upgraded to a smartphone a few years after they started getting popular, I held it even more securely, since it was even more expensive, and even more fragile. At this point it’s just second nature to me to handle phones like I’m transporting fine china.
I agree that the features are possible while still making the phone sturdier, which I wholeheartedly support, but I also understand that capitalism doesn’t usually let us have upgrades, only tradeoffs, and usually bad ones.
I agree that there should be phones that prioritize sturdiness for clumsy people, but I see things like sturdiness and waterproof capabilities used as an excuse to get rid of useful features, and I don’t like it. I’ve had cell phones for over 2 decades, and I’ve never dropped one; having an SD card slot and headphone jack is much more important to me than durability, since I rarely hold it over water, and always make sure to keep a solid grip regardless of the circumstances.
Just get a shoebox of shoebox pills and you can just get a box of 10’s and 20’s whenever you need.
Frozen? Every parfait I’ve had has just been yogurt with berries and jam in it. Also, yes, if you use chocolate sauce instead of gravy, you can absolutely call it pork au chocolat. It would probably be better if you switched out the pork for something like pancakes, but you do you; one of the best things about food is that you can do whatever you want with it.
Looks like a savory parfait to me.
People are scared that if you acknowledge the fact that Biden is concerning as a presidential candidate in any way, people will be less likely to vote for him; the sad state of the matter is that Biden is the only candidate who has a chance to beat Trump at this late of a stage in the game. The reasoning that we need to avoid criticizing him as a result of that is bullshit though, since if you’re closing your eyes and voting for your default color, then such discussion won’t affect to your vote, and if you’re actually paying attention to the state of our upcoming election, then you’ll already be well aware that being against Trump forces you to vote Biden, so your vote is locked in, regardless of how depressing it is. Nobody’s still hemming and hawing at this point, and even if some are, some random meme on Lemmy isn’t going to be the thing that finally gets them to make up their mind.
There’s no reason we can’t acknowledge the fact that, while being better than Donald Trump should win Biden the presidential election, it’s not an accomplishment, and in a vacuum he’s a terrible candidate. In fact, we specifically need to point out that we knew this scenario was coming for the past 4 years, and have organized no major uprisings, or even major educational movements to try to get people to force out a different Democratic candidate in the primaries; we’ve sat on our asses ever since the last election, and there’s no reason to think we won’t do the same going into the next election unless we start forcing a change in the DNC right now.
These “both sides” discussions aren’t about whether or not to choose to vote for Biden, they’re about getting people to notice the fact that we vote for the “lesser evil” every 4 years, saying that the time to make a change is after we’re solidified our candidate’s victory, but then once we’ve done that we do nothing until we’re in the same “lesser evil” situation again 4 years later. If we want to ever have a situation where we’re voting for a president we’d actually like, we need to start planning out how to force that to happen now, because even 4 whole years isn’t a very long time frame to for us to push such a large change.
I can understand some people are scared that Trump is going to win because too many people chose to vote 3rd party, or choose not to vote, but everyone who’s paying attention enough to be swayed by political discussion is already aware that we specifically need to vote for Biden in order for Trump to lose, so at this point the fanatical drive to quash any criticism of him as a presidential candidate seems nearly tailor-made to sow even more apathy among the voting population, making them feel not only forced into voting for Biden, but forced into liking it as well. In the end I think the efforts to prevent discussion about how neither candidate is an objectively good candidate is going to ultimately cause fewer people to vote at all, since they’ll feel as though they can’t even air out their grievances with the candidate they’d already begrudgingly chosen to vote for.