anon6789

It’s great it’s not an all or nothing thing. It lets you see what components make a bigger difference and then you can pick and choose what you do when.

I wish trial sizes were a thing though. GF bought a ton of stuff that either didn’t help or made her hair worse, so there’s a lot of 90% unused bottles, which at least I end up experimenting with, but some of the styling stuff I don’t use so it just sits there forever.

That’d be a good business for someone with more patience than I. Buy all this stuff and sell little travel sizes a la carte. One year I got her a ton of perfume sample so she could find new fragrances without a big upfront expense and she’s really enjoyed that, and we learned Kohls sells a few products like that we’re you get a few samples for the price of a single bottle and it gives you a code to get a discount off the one you like best.

I always had straight and flat hair and kept it really short for the last 20 years. The girlfriend tried curly girl for awhile and while her hair isn’t really curly, it really made the waves much more dramatic and it looked amazing.

We’re not big on regimented routines though, so while she stopped it after a while, we still get most of the same products, and even just with that selective purchasing, her hair is still nicer and softer than before, and it made me want to grow my hair out, and now I have very handsome looking waves I never thought would have been possible for me.

The Curly Girls speak the truth, even if cowashing and plopping sound like silly things!

That’s very much how I read it. “Be grateful you got what you got, and if you don’t kiss my ass and give me a big payment, I’m leaving you and your people to rot. I’m fine either way.”

Every day I think it’s going to be hard to make me be more ashamed of my country, but they do it with such ease.

Zelensky took it like a champ though, and I got to watch much of the video after my original comment, and while Vance was trashing him for not saying thank you nicely enough, when he mentioned the brave people of Ukraine, that was when Zelensky said thank you again as he was being talked over.

As Zelensky implied, everyone is going to have a price to pay for the result of this, however it ends. Ukrainian ,Russian, and North Korean citizens are just the first to feel it. I don’t want any of them to die, but since everyone spent the last 11 years tiptoeing around this issue, now there is a huge sunk cost for those nations, when the rest of the world should have stepped up sooner. After all the death and destruction, why would Ukraine now not only give up to Russia, but now the US also trying to steal their resources? Trump promises to take from Ukraine but will not commit to Ukraine’s safety. They’ve already learned what a deal with Putin means, and they’ve had 4 years of seeing what Trump deals look like, and what he’s doing to Americans right now.

Even with some news agencies being kicked out in the first 40 days of the presidency, there are still good pointed questions being asked. They aren’t always the ones making it to the front page of anyone’s feeds, which I think is terrible, but I don’t feel most everyday people in the US know or care what is going on with all they are facing. We’re on political posting space, so we often forget we are way more heavily invested in knowing world events compared to most people, just as near everyone uses computers, but only a few of us know how to build on or program one. We’re not prepared in school to follow these events, and our society does not put emphasis on learning them. Broadcast news and for profit media will give what people care about at large, if it’s valuable news or rubbish. There are still outlets that deliver the boring plain facts to those like us here though, and I think we need more solidarity for that. Not all media has fallen in line behind Trump or the billionaires, and many are still doing all they can to report on these important issues. If they weren’t providing the facts, Trump wouldn’t be banning people from press events, Bezos wouldn’t be forcing out editors, and Musk and Zuck wouldn’t need to spend so much money pushing propaganda. We need to embrace tighter than ever what we do have, even if it is imperfect, or soon we will not have that either.

This article has some of the grossest stuff I’ve ever heard.

Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for three years of American support, telling him he was in no position to tell the US how it should feel about it.

Those years of support were certainly due to no thanks to you. You hated every bit of help that was given to them, and now you want them to thank you for it??? I believe the US could go in and do to the Russian occupied territory what the Russians thought they could do to Ukraine and roll them over almost immediately. But instead, this admin is ready to leave them for dead unless they give up their only key to financing their rebuild without foreign “help.” This is not seeking cooperation of an ally, it is extorsion.

Trump accuses Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three”. He points his finger at the Ukrainian leader.

“What you are doing is disrespectful to the country - this country that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have,” Trump says.

Zelensky calmly interjects: “I’m with all respect for your country”.

Vice-President Vance interrupts: “Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting?”

Zelensky replies: “A lot of times”.

Vance again says: “No, in this entire meeting, have you said ‘thank you’?”

“You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the USA and the president who is trying to save your country.”

Zelensky shakes his head and looks away, and says the US will also eventually feel the consequences of the war.

Trump appears visibly frustrated, interjecting: "Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel.

“We’re going to feel very good and very strong.”

Sorry Don, I’m not feeling the alliance here. Never seen him once talk about Putin this way. I do think he’s working on an alliance in this war, only it’s not from Ukraine.

230 is important for online free speech, and just like free speech is used in real life, such as protesting against racism, it also protects those protesting for racism. It sucks in some cases, but people of all perspectives have found this a worthwhile compromise for 30 years.

With 230, we protect our online places of assembly. Without it, our right to gather online is greatly endangered.

Say you record police committing abuse. You want to share it online so people can learn about it and spread the word. Host takes it down to avoid being accused of threatening the officer, liable, inciting violence, etc. If the host doesn’t take it down, now you are both open to civil or criminal penalties if they so choose to go after you. If it’s legal or not, do you have the means and will to fight them in court?

Yeah, some Nazis get to dog whistle and push misinformation, but 230 also protects you and hosts that let you tell them off and that they aren’t wanted. Lose 230, and now you could be the one in trouble or getting your favorite site shut down.

I think it would put more websites into the same whack-a-mole situation that piracy sites deal with: moving to domains out of US jurisdiction, mirror sites, etc.

It should be a wake up call to get people more involved locally. We still need to preserve what online protections we have, but many of us may need to work on our ability to rally people in person.

Techdirt

This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Section 230—and the legal immunity it provides to Big Tech—has been on the books since 1996—long before social media became a part of our daily lives. To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness has long since passed.

Here’s a less biased source from the Judiciary Committee.

Debate on 230 has been going on for years. The Left wants it gone so they can hold people responsible for crimes like CSAM and revenge porn and other things like spreading hate speech.

As for why others may want it gone, here is a quote from last year from Lindsey Graham:

ABC

“However, the real prize will be to make sure social media companies no longer enjoy absolute legal immunity under Section 230," Graham said. "I am committed now more than ever to continue to advance my legislative efforts to ensure that those harmed by social media outlets have the ability to seek justice in American courtrooms. Without repealing Section 230, nothing major will change.”

For the “harm”, think if the recent Supreme Court cases where the plaintiffs’ harm turned out to be fake but the case was still found in their favor to protect their ”right" to discriminate.

All those complaints about “right wing opinions being suppressed”, consider your site illegal.

Organize a general strike, illegal.

Make a “threat” against a politician or CEO, illegal.

Site owners in addition to the person “breaking the law” are now liable, in what I am sure would be uneven enforcement.

Check out the History section of the Section 230 wiki entry to see things that have been tried in the past and imagine those protections gone.

Cutting your ability to receive credit card payments if something against the rules occurs in your site, shielding you from liability if someone uploads their manifesto and commits a crime, someone catfishes a minor in your site, and much more would change.

Dang.

You can get the foam covers to add to your hangers.

Look for “foam hanger covers.” We ordered Foamies brand at the dry cleaners, but there wasn’t anything special about that brand, just that we got a lot of them. They just stretch over top of the hanger. We used them for the slinky fabrics that would slide off, and I’d something was really slippery, you could stick straight pins into them.

I’ve been wondering if a measured pourer for bartending would work or if the detergent is too viscous.

I had my home before I met my ex and my current gf. Like you, I was used to paying for everything, but contributing makes people feel like they’re an active part of the whole home situation, so my thought was always:

1. They get the groceries. They will have different tastes than me, and it’s the only bill that really doubled as soon as someone else was here every day.

2. They are the main provider of outside the house activities. Going out to eat. Buying gifts to bring to parties. A bigger chunk of vacation budgets. I’ve already got the home expenses covered. I got to pick the home, so they get to pick the outside of home experience for our life together. It splits up the choices instead of just the money.

Both people were making significantly less than me when but relationships started, though but eventually evened out. This split of things also let them ramp spending up or down with how well our overall financial picture was at the time without any worries of actual bills being paid.

Also as I said, I already had picked the home itself solely on my own along with all the furnishings, so letting them spearhead the non-permanent aspects let them feel they contributed an even amount to the relationship and let them put forward their personalities in unique ways. Both people are very different in who they are, and both really enjoyed the way things were split up, so it seems I struck on something.

You’re always in the fray, because you want to be seen to be in the fray, because you cannot comprehend yourself to be not in the fray.

This does feel accurate. I wouldn’t know how else to explain it at least.

I don’t really know much about Libya, as that took place a little before I started to get actively interested in politics. Looking it up now seems there is much more to the situation than I could pick up in 5 minutes and understand anything. I couldn’t tell you why we went there, or to Somolia, or most of the places we go. Most of the things America gets involved in, I don’t see what the benefit is to the actual American people. I’d much rather we go around giving aid instead of swinging a sword if we want to show others how “great” we are.

I also don’t understand the idea that anyone would want to “take over” Russia as it seems their defense for most of their actions seems to be. Does anyone actually want to do that? I feel the world just wants to see them stop having crappy leaders and that’s the extent of it. As deep as the US/Russia feud is, I’ve never heard talk of actually trying to get rid of Russia as a country in any realistic manner.

not wanting to stoke the Russia/US rivalry bee’s nest

This has been one of the strangest things to me as an American looking at this conflict. I’m not particularly anti-American, but I don’t look at us as anything special either. I attribute much of our success as a nation to being industrially ready for WW2 while not really taking any direct attacks from the war. We profited and were able to pocket all that money while almost everyone else had to spend money rebuilding is my simplified understanding.

We seem to have no real skin in the game other than this was a chance to help someone else beat up a rival for us while keeping our hands clean. Why the US seemed to be calling so many of the shots seemed absolutely ridiculous other than we like throwing weaponry wherever we can get away with it. I can understand us not putting troops in Ukraine, but why it felt we limited what anyone else could do when we would be the least directly affected by the outcome was very confusing.

It seems impossible other European countries would not get involved if we walked away, but it did seem like the option that would limit the overall violence the most with us just helping Ukraine. I don’t want to see more countries get pulled in, especially since America is usually all about inserting our military in places. Trump bumping off Putin seems more on brand for what his fans usually go for anyway. They already sound in a bad position, and giving them the final nudge off the edge seems like an easy way to look like a real world hero. I dont’t know what would come with the collapse of Putin’s control, but at least initially I think most people would be in favor of that. Pulling out and leaving it to everyone else or doing things to help Russia now just seems a negative to us and most of you with no benefit to all but probably a single digit number of people.

“and then butter became even more expensive, among other things which got worse”.

This made me laugh. I love how some people cope with things.

I have met so few actually interested in our own politics, let alone what is going on half a world away. It is very disappointing.

I’m not one to promote fighting, but Russia coming into Ukraine and being 100% in the wrong was a chance for us to do right and actually support the right side of a conflict and really strengthen relations with our allies and deal a blow to a long-time antagonist. It seemed like a thing we could do with no way of coming out of it badly. I wasn’t keen on sending things like cluster munitions that have bad downstream effects, but otherwise it seemed we were sending you things we had but no longer needed, but you all were in crucial need of. The media framed it in dollar figures of aid being sent, which I feel did a disservice with people’s lack of understanding here. It was money that had been spent decades ago, but people felt like it was coming out of their pockets now instead of it being bad economic policy in the present.

Now though, we seem to be taking shots at our allies and preparing to buddy up to our longtime rival so the president can finally get his Moscow apartments built and twist resources out of a beaten up ally for what his fans we feel that you guys “owe” for us helping you out and ignoring you to make peace with your invader. I don’t think we could have made a better new friend than a restored Ukraine, and it would have put us in a good light with the rest of Europe, as if Ukraine compromises in this whole affair, I think that extends more danger to most of Europe, especially other former Soviet states.

If we end up screwing you guys over, I think this will go down as a huge blunder in history, and I don’t think it will take long for the US to feel repercussions, as I don’t see us getting much useful from an unofficial alliance with Russia, and it will ruin our trust with every nation, especially throughout Europe, unless they keep going hard to the right as well, in which case, I don’t look forward to those alliances either. This all seems negative for us now here, and I feel terrible that your country is being treated like this by our government. I felt our nations were really on a great path until the election.

I and everyone I associate with still want you all to succeed. I think what is going on between you and Russia is going to have a huge influence on the whole world in the near future, and I’d rather you get back what was taken from you and end this war successfully than for my country to reap any benefit from the aid we lent you. It should have all been to do the right thing for our friends. If it wasn’t, we deserve the treatment we get from the rest of the world. It will be bad for us, but there has to be a price for stranding an ally.

Good point. I tend to forget about sanctions because they’re not something really visible. I’d say dropping those would be very bad optics for both the government and whichever businesses start selling to Russia again, but that seems to be a very low concern given what we’re doing to our own country at the moment. It just would look like blatantly stabbing Ukraine in the back though. The US seems to be hell bent on making enemies out of everyone and I hate it so much.

While the US could easily veto them joining NATO, there’s nothing making Ukraine accept any deal struck between Russia and the US, who, last I checked, was not an active participant in this war. I don’t know why Ukrainians would just throw in the towel after losing so much. I don’t know if Europe can sustain things at the level of support Ukraine has been getting with US aid, but all the talk I hear makes it sound like the EU will do what it can.

Especially if Trump expects mineral rights or whatever he is going on about. I don’t know why Ukraine would give up such tremendous value to a party that just volunteers them to surrender. Losing more territory to Russia is a possibility if they can’t maintain troop/supply levels, but it hardly seems worth it for them to give up at this moment. It’s been my understanding keeping the pressure on Russia constantly and not letting them recover has been crucial to Ukraine’s success.

It just feels like Trump trying to put himself at the center of attention when he really has nothing to do with this anymore if he’s choosing to stop US aid to Ukraine.

Yes, but I want to repalce that with this Greenland bill that actually unites citizens against campaign corruption!

This Citizen United approach sounds far superior to the American one.