Using they/them by default is already a good start - I would be surprised to learn if neopronouns are a thing at all in languages that don’t have gendered pronouns to begin with. they/them is perfectly acceptable to 99+% of people - both cis and LGBT+.

You can just say LGBT or LGBT+. Lots of others are in use but very, very few people will legitimately get mad at you for picking one over any other.

If someone specifically tells you to call them a certain thing, you should call them that thing. Otherwise just stick to they/them.

If someone tells you their sexuality and it is not relevant to you, you have no obligation to ever bring it up again, just as with any form of oversharing.

And as for why some people share these things even though you may personally find it too revealing - that’s just down to personal preference. Different things are important to different people in different ways. Some people might go through their life never giving their gender a single thought. Others might base their life around affirming and fighting for it in various ways. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Everyone has a cause they believe in a lot - for some people, this is that cause. As an “Aero Ace” (a term I had to look up - “aromantic asexual” for those who also haven’t encountered it), you’re probably pretty predisposed to not care about any of this stuff on any significant level.

So… The NO WAI Act?

> Makes thread asking if you should go to the ER

> Literally everyone says to go to the ER

> Doesn’t go to the ER

ok

June 10th, 2020

What I’d really like to know is, why are screenshots of tweets and such always so poorly cropped? Why do they all need to be 80% dead space vertically?

I use 160g spaghetti with an entire 14oz jar of sauce, personally.

When they plaster that “If everyone reading this donated $x.yz right now, we’d be done within the hour” message I’ll usually donate exactly the amount it says.

gen z: Roughly the generation currently in their teens to twenties.

dommes - Sexual dominants, as opposed to subs. Specifically female in this case, with “doms” being the masculine/gender-neutral variant.

puppygirls - Dog equivalent of a catgirl. A girl who takes on visual and personality traits of a puppy to various extents, often as a form of sexual play.

dogcage - Where you put your puppygirl when she’s been chewing on the remote or peeing on the rug.

rawdog - To experience something “raw”, without any aides to make the experience safer or more tolerable.

Translation: It’s incredulous that young sexual dominants allow their submissives to use their phones while in their cage. It lessens the experience!

Cory in the House?

The headline is of course misleading, but not really for the reasons you pointed out. Nobody is going to read that headline and think it means 93% of gynecological research is conducted on men. Some people might read it and think it means 93% of medical research overall is conducted on men, though.

Literally none of this matters anyways if pennies are going, because making prices end in certain amounts won’t work as nice in practice as it does here for the simple reason that US prices almost never include taxes.

Relevant

It is 33% if the answer itself is randomly chosen from 25%, 50%, and 60%. Then you have:

If the answer is 25%: A 1/2 chance of guessing right

If the answer is 50%: A 1/4 chance of guessing right

If the answer is 60%: A 1/4 chance of guessing right

And 1/3*1/2 + 1/3*1/4 + 1/3*1/4 = 1/3, or 33.333…% chance

If the answer is randomly chosen from A, B, C, and D (With A or D being picked meaning D or A are also good, so 25% has a 50% chance of being the answer) then your probability of being right changes to 37.5%.

This would hold up if the question were less purposely obtuse, like asking “What would be the probability of answering the following question correctly if guessing from A, B, C and D randomly, if its answer were also chosen from A, B, C and D at random?”, with the choices being something like “A: A or D, B: B, C: C, D: A or D”

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wendigo-wendussy

Yes but it’s not hooked up to cable or the internet. I just use it for the Switch, or I’ll occasionally hook it up as an alternate second monitor to my PC and play a movie on it. It hasn’t been turned on in a few weeks and the last time was to be used as a temporary monitor to set up a new headless PC.

Adding on to the reasons others posted: Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. If you take off a year for him, that puts an immense amount of pressure on him. Pressure to go to the same school as you, pressure to go to school at all, even pressure to stay in the relationship.

It’s always gonna be “They made this gigantic life decision to their detriment for me, so if I change my mind about anything and want to do things differently, like by going to a different school, or not going to a school, or wanting to break up, then I’m a huge ungrateful jerk.”

Putting that kind of pressure on someone isn’t really cool, especially if they’re actively discouraging you from doing so.

Given the specific names on that list, I took it as an awkward attempt to list the people they think are standing up, rather than a list of people they were admonishing for not standing up

Others have covered that there were internal supports, so they were supporting nothing at all. But let’s assume they weren’t.

I’m going for an intentional underestimate - so let’s say there are 10 people in your layer (I think 8 is more likely), then 24 above them, 18 above them, 18 above them, 25 above them, 14 above them, and 2 above them. I think most people would agree those are underestimates for each ring.

That’s 101 people being supported by 10 people. If we take another underestimate that each of those people weighs 100 pounds (45.36 kg) then that’s 10,100 pounds (4581.28 kg) - or 1010 pounds (458.13 kg) supported by each of the 10 people in your ring, completely ignoring the weight of the metal rings visible in the picture. So I think it’s safe to say it was mostly the internal supports at work.

Here’s a better article that isn’t as uncritically sensationalist.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/04/de-extinction-company-announces-that-the-dire-wolf-is-back/

tl;dr is that it’s basically just a gray wolf with 14 edited genes, most of which are from natural gray wolf populations rather than dire wolf genomes. The result is a gray wolf that’s visually similar to a dire wolf, not a dire wolf.

Honestly the worst thing about this equation isn’t the fact that they had poor typesetting, it was that they used decorative constants. The ε and φ values they chose just cancel out. The equation is equivalent to (xᵢ - mᵢ) / mᵢ.

Asterisks for multiplication are fine and normal and common in typed text. Where it’s unusual is in text that’s been typeset, where using things like asterisks for multiplication defeat the point of typesetting, It would be like going through all the effort to typeset an equation, but still saying sqrt(x) instead of using the square root symbol.