This seems to me a bit outside your usual family obligations

It was actually the law to do that, IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum

Just because there were no Catholics, that doesn’t mean that people weren’t violating some divine law (people also call it “natural law”). And unless you have a very specific meaning of “sin” in mind, there were absolutely “things you shouldn’t do or God will be angry”. Religion didn’t start with Jesus.

Free Speech, baybeee.

And yes, spending money counts as speaking.

I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!

They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.

You’ve made the point clear to me. Thank you.

Personally I don’t like ordering clothes online, but I did find this shop which seems to have made it its point to produce women’s pants with big pockets: https://radianjeans.com/ No clue if they’re any good, since I’m neither in the market for women’s pants nor in the US.

It’s hard to judge from photos, but some of these show women putting their whole hand in the pockets: https://oldnavy.gap.com/shop/womens-pants-with-pockets-0aaz06b

If you don’t like tiny pockets, then why did you buy pants with tiny pockets? I seriously don’t understand the logic.

Men’s underpants come with flies and without flies. Those without are usually cheaper. If I want a fly, I buy those with a fly. I don’t buy underpants without a fly and then complain that I didn’t get a fly.

I believe you that pants with big pockets are hard to find and that it’s effort to buy them. But that still doesn’t add any sense to buying pants with tiny pockets.

Could it be because women keep buying them? I’ve never seen my mother wear pants without pockets, and when she bought a new jacket, the amount and placement of pockets was the first thing on her mind.

Only now I realize the significance of that. But still. How hard is it to not buy pocketless apparel?

Testurteil: „Befriedigend”

A little joke for the Germans.

To save people a click: ISO is 51200 (in layman’s terms: holy shit it goes this high?) and they still exposed for 1/4s (somewhat normal for low-light photography) at an aperture of f/2.8 (gaping hole).

Suppose the average person p₀ has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p₀’s acquaintances (call one of them p₁) also has n acquaintances, leading p₀ with n² acquaintances of the second degree.

However, in a social network, many of p₁’s acquaintances are shared between p₀ and p₁. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p₁’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p₀. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p₁’s acquaintances is p₀ themselves.

This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n²⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.

To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n²⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [100² ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.

So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.

No stars! They haven’t learned from their stupid mistake 60 years ago! /s

I wonder how many AI-relationships it actually takes to get 20% of a network to know one of them.

There’s a lot to unpack there. I’ll choose

unwashed body hair that is producing an odor

Hair doesn’t smell.

The argument ‘why is it there then?’ is still flawed, even if you are sHoCkEd by an argument by comparison.

That’s why, in every new place I get, I strip naked and run around shouting GERONIMOOOO

What’s special about 1619 to be considered the start of American slavery?

I don’t see the commitment length? That info bubble is just an explanation of what they mean by “commitment”.

It even says so at the end of the bubble. What’s your point?