Ah, i see. Thats really interesting, thanks for your insight.

That’s interesting, last I had heard TikTok was morally abysmal when it came to paying creators. Unless that changed in the last few months then any Tiktok creator would make more money on YouTube even with a smaller audience.

Well if you define death as “not existing” then 100% of people who don’t experience life are also dead.

“Hmmm well if you think tiktok should be banned for spying then do you think american social media platforms should be banned for doing the same thing?”

Yes. They should. That is not the argument you think it is.

I mean when you’re in an echo chamber this intense it’s natural to lash out. I kind of expected something like that to pop up eventually.

Honestly not sure if the concept of Facebook was so great to begin with actually…

Connect app web viewer was not prepared for that at all lmao

Well, I got the impression that the author was mostly hanging out in upper class society. So while she’s asserting that these rules are universally applicable, her frame of reference seemed to be mostly talking to people in situations like fundraisers and galas. I imagine she’s operating on a framework of always having some prior knowledge of the people she’s engaging with.

I got that vibe throughout the entire book. It really smelled to me of someone trying to justify their own success when in reality she was probably just born with the right connections.

In her book “How to talk to anyone” Leil Lowndes suggests that when speaking with women it’s best to maintain constant, unbroken eye contact to signal attention and interest. She goes on to note that even when engaged in conversation with multiple people one should act as if their eyes are constantly glued to the woman, only briefly looking away when another person is speaking and behaving as if your eyes are irresistibly drawn back to the woman of interest. She believes this formula is best in male to female conversations and female to female conversation.

By contrast, she notes that when engaged in a male to male conversation, one should regularly break eyecontact as not to be perceived as a threat. However, one should still act as if your eyes are being irresistibly drawn back to theirs.

… I have no idea what Lowndes’s qualifications are and frankly this sounds like a formula written by an alien trying to understand humans but hey maybe theres some merrit to it idk

• Orcas are hyper intelligent
• There has never been a documented orca attack on humans
• People regularly go missing at sea without a trace

Hmmm…

I mean at this point it’s not even news

The thing that gets me is the McDonald’s employees tip. Whenever something like this happens the police are flooded with false information and bad tips, this case would have been even moreso due to the politics involved. What made them decide this random person in another state was credible? What about this tip in particular made them say “this information should be followed up on.”

deleted by creator

Good catch, I’ll correct it 👍

I feel like i see a joke or comic like this every two months.

Here’s the thing, if you are unsure about the messages you’re receiving and decided not to act, you did the correct thing. You were wise not to interpret uncertain signals as signs of romantic interest, no matter how clear they were in hindsight. If a woman is interested in you, the onus is on her to make that unambiguous and take the next step, because she’s not the one who’s advances could be mistaken as dangerous.

You did the right thing.

D

Huh, the commenter mentioned it really casually but its a fun fact that Peter is actually just a nickname for the apostle Simon that does essentially mean Rocky or Rocko. The original name Petros just means rock like in the word petrified.

Ah yes, the manifesto he wrote, the one where he conveniently confesses to the crime and never destroyed. The manifesto that he never destroyed but also never released to the public like anyone else with a manifesto would do. The manifesto that he was just kind of holding onto for no reason almost as if it was designed to serve as evidence against him. That manifesto. Of course…

Hey listen I’m not trying to read too far into this or anything but if op’s source is actually accurate then doesn’t that pretty well refute what you’re saying?