It's largely incidental.

Soft-tissue cosmetic surgery doesn't last. They're foreign objects in the body, so over time your body tries to break them down. Lip filler slowly diffuses around the bottom of your face, for example. Botox paralysing muscles affects strength and elasticity.

So it's a cursed treadmill. You can't stop getting surgery once you start. A single surgery will look worse than your unaltered face if you only have one, so every few years you have to get it again.

But.. all the old stuff is still in there. The muscle damage accumulates. The filler accumulates, and is impossible to remove. You might remove some of your own tissue to 'reshape' as it gets more advanced, but many just 'top up'.

Either way, you are permanently altered. They don't choose to look like this, they choose to make minor adjustments to look younger/hotter/etc that slowly turn them into this.

Tbh I'd be concerned if he was raped while drunk or unconscious. It is, unfortunately, not so rare. If so, then as far as she's concerned that's 'sex together'. A lot of women perpetrators do not consider themselves rapists because it's 'non-violent' or they believe theyre doing the man a favour.

It's not just salmonella from the egg, it's also e coli from the raw flour.

If you want to make yourself cookie dough, remember to bake loose flour for a bit first to kill any microbes in that, too.

I guess infancy is just about establishing a fundamental texture profile to use in adulthood. A standardised collection of mouthfeels. PANTONGUE™️

The whole point of the phrase is: When the poor have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich.

It wasnt coined as a threat. It's a warning. The poor are already starving, and there is a limit.

And the thing is that 'rich' is not an intrinsic property, it's not genetic. When you eat the rich, everything they were hoarding - that which gave them the title 'rich' - becomes accessible. It doesn't disappear from the system like an MMO inventory.

Only after the starving poor eat the rich, will there be a path to a possible future without starvation.

Isn't the MO for venture capitalists to run businesses into the ground, make them owe debt to themselves, cannibalise businesses from the inside and then run away with a profit while they bankrupt?

Not surprising to make a decision that kills a business because the entire point is to kill the golden goose

Cyberpunk fiction isn't about a hypothetical speculative future. It's an critical allegory for the issues of the present. Of course reality aligns with it when left unchanged.

Tbf she made zero effort to converse with OOP either

Feel like this title should've been Wisconsin Demands Arrest of... Because holy shit my heart skipped a beat to think something might change :(

The more ad-riddled they make the platform to try and monetise users, the more they make adblocks necessary to even be usable.

I didn't use to both with adblockers. I didn't like ads, but they didn't affect me enough for me to go through any effort blocking them.

Now I use blockers everywhere, on every platform. Even for creators I like, because I know how little they actually make for ads - so how bout instead of watching 12 hours of ads so they can get 2c, I just send them a dollar or buy their merch every once in a while to not watch ads at all? Etc.

Ads could have had a place. There are ads that serve a purpose, that have minimal disruption but still give businesses a way to develop awareness for those who might want to use them.

Movie trailers (including when they stopped trailing movies and started leading them) are examples of 'acceptable ads' to me. When I purchase something from a store and they include a printed card from their sponsor. When sports teams have logos for being sponsored. A work van with the business logo parked while out on call. Etc.

But the internet's online ads? Email spam? Telemarketing? These are forms of advertising that are actively hostile, and they've become the default. So now a user that wants to be on the internet at all is best served by block all ads, including the ones that would've otherwise been reasonable.

Google will never make me feel guilty for blocking ads when they're already making their search engine unusable, too.

And while I'm at it, here's the filters to add to your uBlock Origin's MY FILTERS settings to block YT's blocker:

youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.openPopupConfig.supportedPopups.adBlockMessageViewModel, false)

youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.adBlocksFound, 0)

youtube.com##+js(set, ytplayer.config.args.raw_player_response.adPlacements, [])

youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.hasAllowedInstreamAd, true)

But like. Are you stopping him? He's been doing shady and illegal shit for ages, and yall can point out its illegal and shady, but like. Are any of those critics actually stopping him or nah

Like please, I want some good news, and Moral High Ground does not count

I'm reminded of someone I know. He felt something similar for a long time. Ultimately he concluded that, for him, what he really wanted was to feel attractive and desirable. And sincr he believed that only women could have that, he spend years conflicted about wanting to be a woman.

After some time around sex-positive people, he had experiences that helped him feel desirable and attractive as a man. He realised that was what he actually wanted, and he'd just been taught beauty was a women-thing and thought he had to be a woman to have it.

Maybe that rings true for you, too. Maybe all you really want is to feel beautiful, wanted, desired. Maybe want you dislike isn't your gender, but the role society has assigned you for it.

Only you can really figure that out. I just wondered if my friends story would mean something to you.. Being trans is a valid answer, but it isn't the right one for everybody.

Every time I see this meme format I'm a little frustrated and sad.

A long time ago, Cosmo did a bunch of studies on dating app users. It published a bunch of their results and people have been miscounting it ever since to serve their assumptions.

On dating apps, when one woman matches with one man, 90% of women match with 10% of men. This is largely a result of the app populations, which were and are mostly men. Unless you're okay with your girl dating ~9 men at once, dating apps will only match a small percentage of men, because that's how maths works.

When asked to judge dating app profile pictures (no other profile information), women judged men's pictures lower than men judged women's. This is as much a factor of the profile pictures we choose as anything else. In addition, men's match preferences had a strong relationship with their attraction ranks. Whereas for women the relationship was weaker, and the content of the profile was a larger deciding factor. But people hear about the judging profile photos thing and go 'women are more critical of appearance than men are -> women are shallow'.

When asked 'what age are [men/women] most atteactive', women tended to answer close to their own age (with a drop off around 50). Most men said 20-25. But most men saying still typically matched close to their own age. Much like the women with profile pictures, they were trying to answer a direct question with what they believed was a critical, scientific, 'objective' answer, rather than reflecting their own dating preferences. But now women fear (or believe) that any men will not find them attractive as they age.

There's a lot of interesting things in those findings, if you acknowledge it is specifically measuring dating app users, had nuanced findings, and was not scientifically robust in the first place. It's broad conclusions DO NOT apply to the population as a whole.

And I ache a little each time I see its conclusions reduced and misused to justify misanthropy. Much like the myth of 'the alpha wolf', it's misinformation that refuses to die.

Are techbros so bland that they really can't think of literally any fucking way to make money that isn't just 'ads'?

They defederated because they were both large Lemmy instances with zero review process for joining users, and they'd rapidly starting acquiring bots and bad actors. Because of federation, these accounts could interact on Beehaw's server like they were locals.

Beehaw on the other hand, has a human-powered review process for signup. It isn't strict, but it keeps out bots or low-effort users. Beehaw's community goal means that reducing the amount of bots, bad actors, and low-effort users on the platform is a priority for them. Their moderating is also human-powered, and very involved - not outright banning/blocking. They reach out to users to discuss their content's intent, and issue warnings/requests personally as needed.

That level of moderation is fantastic for fostering community and is compassionate for ignorance and error; but it isn't scalable when being hammered by bots and an influx of new accounts. Beehaw's only protection from instances that shelter bots and bad actors was to defederate from them until those instances were able to address them somehow.

The Beehaw admins have reached out to the admins of the other instances; their hope is to find a solution that reduces the amount of bots and spam accounts creating on .world and .works. They don't want defederation to be a permanent solution, it's just the only feasible one they had.

Where's us weirdos that like to eat 1-3 at a time by one sticking to our tongue like a frog

😭 🥀 God I wish I had gotten more of those novelty homewares while I still could. I'm an adult, I accept I need a laundry basket.... but nobody else would've sold me a collapsible radioactive waste barrel.

I enjoyed the 'bloody handprint' shower curtain, but by the time I had enough money to get such items as yhr matching bloody-footprint bathmat with intention, ThG was gone for good.

This feels like somebody tried to recreate and taxidermy a dog after somebody swapped the skull for a crocodiles.

Neat.