It’s not like a lecture. It’s a pep rally. Energy rally. To rally is to come together for a common cause. It’s meant to bring people together to boost and sustain energy, in this case about a candidate or party. You’re not going there to learn things.

Ok

A black venti coffee from Starbucks has almost 450mg of caffeine. 200mg probably isn’t “whopping (!)”-worthy.

I have a co-worker that drinks a pot of coffee at work each day by himself. That’s about 1,200mg of caffeine, and he has a cup in the morning before he gets to work, so he’s probably having about 1,500mg/day. Admittedly that’s on the high side.

800mg of caffeine from black coffee per day is actually shown to be good for you. Reduced risk of alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, and Parkinson’s. Reduces inflammation. Lowered rates of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer.

It’s more or less an inevitability at this point, regardless of what we do. Really we’re just trying to get corporations and countries to make changes so it will be Gen A’s (or the following generation’s) problem instead of Z.

Normalcy now has an unavoidable term limit. The question is if we’re going to shorten how long that timespan is by desperately holding onto normalcy now for as long as we can, or if we’re going to start making things harder, more challenging, and less normal sooner to make the transition less painful and give it a longer on-ramp.

Currently we seem to be choosing option A.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen some friends take things a little more seriously when I’ve explained that currently we’re going to see abrupt and incredibly disruptive changes at the point in our (Gen Z and Millenials) lives when we’re at the age when we’ll be least able to tolerate the changes and most reliant on others. In 40-50 years, Z and M are going to be senior citizens at best. While we may be full of distracted, dopamine-seeking denial now, by the time shit really starts hitting the fan, we’re going to be extra weight on the generations struggling desperately to survive.

Don’t expect a happy retirement.

The majority of individuals on platforms like Lemmy—and social media more broadly—engage almost exclusively as passive consumers. Their involvement often begins and ends with the simple act of upvoting or downvoting content. This limited interaction speaks volumes about the nature of digital engagement, where consuming information or entertainment takes precedence over meaningful interaction or contribution. The absence of deeper engagement is not a failing of the platform itself but a reflection of broader societal tendencies.

People, in general, tend toward passivity, a trait that extends beyond online spaces and into areas like civic participation. In the United States, for example, voter turnout remains notoriously low. People express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, they crave change, and they criticize institutions, yet they shy away from taking the minimal steps required to enact that change, often hiding behind a hand-waving comment involving the words “systemic,” “structure,” and/or “institutions,” a transparent way of excusing their unwillingness to actually act. As though they themselves are not parts of those systems, structures, and institutions. The same individuals who will upvote or downvote content online without a second thought are often the ones who abstain from voting in elections, an “upvote/downvote” that directly impact their lives.

What is even more concerning is that this passivity is not merely a result of laziness or apathy, but something ingrained and encouraged by modern society. Our institutions—whether educational, political, or corporate—tend to value compliance over initiative. Decision-making, once seen as a marker of personal agency and responsibility, is increasingly viewed as a burden. People have been conditioned to prefer being told what to do rather than take responsibility for their choices.

If a decision goes wrong, there’s an inherent comfort in being able to place blame on someone else. This social conditioning makes being passive, fading into the wallpaper, not only acceptable but desirable for many. And yet, these same people will often feel deeply dissatisfied with their lives. But, rather than do something about it, they continue to be helpless, wishing someone would decide for them to improve their lives and then forcing them to do it.

While it’s easy to express frustration with the passive nature of online participants, it is also, sadly, understandable. They are products of a society that rewards inaction more than action, where engagement is often reduced to the simplest and least effortful gestures. These platforms reflect the broader societal trend toward disengagement from real, consequential decision-making, reinforcing and reflecting a vicious cycle of passive impotence while they wait for someone or something to fix things for them.

I can imagine, but it only adds bitterness. Seems counterproductive for this application.

Why in the world would you include the lemon pith? Or is that not what you mean by “lemon flesh”?

K

No, cable was developed to deliver standard TV (i.e., programming with regular commercials) to places that couldn’t get broadcast TV. It has always been a subscription service and has always had commercials. It was also always “bundled” with a selection of channels. You couldn’t even choose what came in your bundle until much later.

Not having commercials has really only been a thing for, at best, like 15 years. Broadcast and cable TV has always had commercials with the exception of specialty channels like HBO and Showtime and a few others.

Streaming only overtook cable TV in viewership in 2020. Even in 2022, cable and broadcast TV still made up 56% of viewership.

More athletic hamsters and we keep the wheel well lubricated.

Bathroom attendants play a key role in maintaining cleanliness and providing a touch of personalized service, especially in high-end establishments. Their primary responsibility is to ensure the restroom remains clean, sanitary, and fully stocked with supplies. However, their role goes beyond just cleaning. At upscale locations, bathroom attendants offer a variety of helpful services, such as providing guests with towels, cologne, gum, or mouthwash. They also discreetly help you leave the restroom looking your best—whether that means making sure your shirt is tucked in properly, your tie and gig-line is straight, or there’s no toilet paper stuck to your shoe.

Most of their cleaning duties are performed between guests. While you’re washing your hands, they might simply offer you a towel or a spritz of cologne. But when the restroom is empty, attendants are hard at work, wiping down surfaces, checking stalls, and restocking supplies to ensure everything remains in top shape. This constant attention prevents the need for the restroom to be closed for cleaning by some sweaty guy in filthy coveralls swearing and muttering randomly, instead keeping the space clean and functional seamlessly throughout the night.

Bathroom attendants also provide a subtle layer of security, monitoring restroom usage to prevent smoking, drug use, or other inappropriate activities. In some cases, particularly at nightclubs, this may even be their primary responsibility. While lower-end venues may employ bathroom attendants to create a more VIP atmosphere, the attendants in these settings are often more like an extension of front-door security and are there to keep things safe and orderly, rather than to provide the full range of services seen in higher-end locales.

Next time you encounter a bathroom attendant, ask them how you look before leaving the restroom. They’ll likely be happy to offer a quick adjustment or a friendly compliment, ensuring you leave looking sharp. In a way, they’re like an underappreciated wingman, helping you make the best impression possible. They’re also usually wired into the rest of the house, so if you’d like the bartender to come by your table with something special or have some other special request, they can help take care of it.

Nina Gaiden 2. Bayou Billy.

I know it’s kind of lame, but I like it when she likes it. She wears relatively light makeup, maybe some eye shadow and lash stuff. It accentuates the things she likes about herself, but she’s also totally comfortable wearing none. So basically, I like when she wears makeup and when she doesn’t, because she’s not doing it because she feels compelled, she’s doing it because she feels like it, and I like how she looks when she looks how she wants to look.

Anything episodic or with an online social component. Basically anything that leeches significant time from my life. I don’t want to be in my deathbed thinking about how many thousands of hours I spent on various games.

People bragging about having 5,000+ hours in a single video game make me deeply sad.

K

My guess is you’re talking to a middle-aged white guy with a white-collar job, probably in something related to IT, web development, or something similar who has parents that are likely doing fine.

Being confused as to why it would seem natural for you to help your family if they need you and you can do it really says a lot about his own “cultural tendencies” and privilege.

Middle, upper-middle, and upper class=wealth flows down.

If you’re poor, and sometimes just not white, wealth flows where it’s needed. Coworkers were very confused why I’m trying to save money to help my parents – who do and have always rented – when they’re too old to work.

Like they literally struggled to wrap their minds around the idea that a) not only can my parents not afford to retire, b) they can’t afford care when they can no longer work, c) they currently take care of my grandma who is in that position right now, d) I don’t, haven’t, and won’t be receiving some sort of windfall in the form of property or money when they die, e) the best off of me and my siblings are who tries to help out financially for the siblings that are having tougher times, not our parents.

They looked at me like I had grown a second head, but I work around almost exclusively upper middle class white people.

It was hardly a “PR move,” they didn’t publicize it, and it didn’t really get traction until Carli Lloyd “admitted” it on Twitter. I’m sure they were taking it a little easy though. That being said, the Australian women’s team lost to U15 boys 3-0 and again to another U15 boys team 7-0; Arsenal’s woman’s team lost 5-0 to a U15 boys club; the professional squad Athletic Feminino in Spain lost to a U16 boys squad 6-0; and there are many, many more examples.

I actually watch more women’s soccer than men’s, so I’m not denigrating the game or quality of play, but I think you’d agree the above represents a pretty clear trend.

Most professional sports in the United States don’t have any policies against women being in the sport. NBA, Football, Baseball, Hockey, etc.

None of them exclude women from playing in the professional leagues. Baseball did briefly in the middle of the 1900s, but that policy was reversed

It’s just that, for these sports, the best women in the game have not yet been better than the worst men in the game. A woman and a man of equal height and weight are still not generally physically equal. Muscle composition and growth, bone structure, etc. mean that on average, women are less strong and less explosive than men, and most popular sports emphasize those attributes.

WNBA teams would often scrimmage against male pick-up basketball players for practice, and they would also often lose. These were just random guys in the area, many of whom didn’t even play often.

The US Women’s National Team played against FC Dallas’s under-15 boys squad and lost 5-2. That USWNT went on to win the Olympics and the women’s World Cup. The Australian women’s team lost to U15 boys 3-0 and again to another U15 boys team 7-0; Arsenal’s woman’s team lost 5-0 to a U15 boys club; the professional squad Athletic Feminino in Spain lost to a U16 boys squad 6-0; and there are many, many more examples.

There is some research on evolutionary theory specifically about the vast differences in upper-body strength: “But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males’ average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females’, with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders, Carrier says, develops with time and with purpose.”

There are very few sports where this would be feasible, and most if not all those sports are not well-watched and make very little money: shooting, archery, ultra-marathons come first to mind.