That’s what I call my testosterone shot sometimes. My precious vials of gender fluid.

It has the number of steps it does so that the pressure from the button holding your pants closed is evenly distributed over the fabric (and thread), so that nothing tears or rips. When sewing through cloth more points of attachment is generally better. You might be able to staple a button on without damaging the fabric over time, but it’s probably a lot less comfortable to wear than one sewn on.

Just attached a button to my pants yesterday, after the factory sewn button gave up.

Other democrats simply have not been pushing back on the Republicans in the way that she has, and it’s fucking baffling.

It’s a lot less baffling if you consider the possibility that they never believed any of the shit they said about Trump being a threat to democracy, or if they did that part doesn’t bother them. It was Theater Time during the election and now it’s Cooperation Time, and actually you’re the extreme one for not just seamlessly switching modes!

They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

Hm, I guess this is esoteric in the sense that most people aren’t interested in it?

Some clothes are made with what’s called ‘slub cotton’, which is cloth made from cotton thread that has irregular lumps jutting out of it. It gives the final woven fabric an interesting look, almost like static. If it’s done with bright or contrasting colors it can give a really interesting pop to the final item.

Yeah, I would expect a printer I paid 6k for to not have malware!

That’s possible, but they aren’t really typical office printers either, it’s for specialized art printing. Again it’s definitely bad, this just isn’t typical office equipment.

Also it’s for a UV printer, not an inkjet or laser printer, with the cheapest option on their website being $1900 and the average being around $6000. So, not a regular printer you would buy off the shelf. It’s still bad of course, but only so many people even could be impacted by it.

quack

When you’re done with that, check out the Snagglepuss comic! The commenter that said if anything it was better was absolutely right.

the statistic showing that the number of disabled adult middle aged “refugees” is double-digit higher that the same number for Danes

You know refugees aren’t a random sample of the population, right? Why tf wouldn’t there be more refugees from war zones, gang violence, etc with disabilities compared to some random Western European country with a population that for the most part deals with none of that? What brain trust managed to convince you that the only way to be a refugee is to like, win an Olympic sprint or something?

Yes, in the mid-late 90s Internet was making people cleverer. Because we didn’t have kids, influencers, politicians and activists on the Internet.

As a former child who was on the internet in the mid to late 90s, this is news to me ;p Come on, eternal September was in ‘93!

Activists on the internet are at least as old as Usenet, as well.

It kind of sounds like this is a list of people you don’t like using the internet, not people who actually made the internet worse (like business majors and programmers that turned every website into SEO mush).

You’re right, it is better, and the Flintstones comic was already really good! I went into it knowing a lot of the historical details of the time, but it was a fantastic and emotionally moving representation of it. 10/10.

Just checked out a digital copy from the library 👍

🔫 Keep walking, Target.

It comes across like you feel we can’t protect gay/minority children from being exploited by huge corporations online because it would be homophobic to protect gay kids from psychological manipulation.

This is some weird ass fanfic you are writing about me for asking how the researchers came to their conclusions about LGBT ads, specifically, being judged to be inappropriate. I’m not engaging with this anymore.

You’re classifying all of these as malicious by virtue of being ads, which the researchers obviously didn’t. Take that up with them.

I question the idea that the reason these were classified as inappropriate was because of sexual pop ups. If that was the case than many innocuous sites with crappy ad practices would have also made it onto the list.

Knowing that queer people exist and that you could be queer isn’t “sexual advertisement,” by the way. Which is why I wanted to know more about how the researchers came to the conclusion that these particular ads were inappropriate.

Absolutely true! If the quiz contents were inappropriate in some way beyond like… acknowledging LGBT people and depression exists, I would like to hear about that part.

It fucking rules, I’m not kidding! It’s so worth a read. I need to see if the Snagglepuss comic they put out in the same style is also good.