nailingjello

You should put that stuff in an old cigar box and label it “old memories”.

I had to disable https

As someone who casually follows the story since it comes up in my feed, congrats. It seems like a fantastic match and it really feels like both of you take care of each other. Keep it up and please keep the posts coming.

Cur Tsne What?

Bravo, that one took the most thought to figure out it was backhanded.

Unironically I think this is the reason why I like one of my friends.

Not directly related, but I’ve always liked the comeback

I’ve been called worse by better people

ts = the shit?

Short answer is Capitalism

This sounds like an episode of Bojack Horseman

Text for the lazy.

Duverger’s Law

In political science, Duverger’s law holds that single-ballot plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system.

Duverger’s law is the reason why U.S. voters select one of the two leading candidates when voting tactically, even if a third-party candidate would better represent their interests. This behavior arises out to fear of vote splitting

One consequence of Duverger’s law is that you can improve the viability of third-party candidates by changing the voting system. For example, Approval voting is more resistant to vote splitting and therefore more conducive to third-party candidates.

He lost a boxing match

Seems like he deserved it.

Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?

Thanks for confirming my assumptions above. I don’t agree.

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

Thanksfor the recap, this really helped. Loved the originals, I’ll just stick to rewatching them.