whatwhatwutyut

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

whatwhatwutyut,

I wonder if it restores removed body parts in their prior condition or in their optimal condition. Because some organs are removed for a good reason.

And I’d be mad as fuck if I had to go through a hysterectomy again.

whatwhatwutyut,

As someone with ADHD… What the fuck? Driving without my meds is much more dangerous because EVERY sensory input is jumping into my attention span. Much easier to focus on important things while on meds

whatwhatwutyut,

Oh man, guess that anyone with ADHD should just try not having it if they want to be a pilot!

I want to believe that the rule is there to not bar people who were incorrectly diagnosed in the past but… I wouldn’t put it past them to believe ADHD can be “cured” or “gotten over”

whatwhatwutyut,

As someone who rarely ever uses YouTube, $25 would be fucking bonkers to pay monthly for no ads. Imo a decent idea to explore would be x amount of minutes that are ad free per month, then after you hit that limit you get given ads. You’d have to be signed into an account, any instances with no account logged in get ads by default.

Another idea is to add lower tiers to the available plans. 5 people can sign in on the current option? Is there a cheaper plan that only allows linking 1 account? This could even tie in with the previous idea and have certain plans that give you x minutes of watching adless per month.

I’m sure there are plenty of other options out there. In fact I wouldn’t be bothered having to watch an ad before a video (or a midroll in a longer video) but the experiences I’ve had with using YouTube frequently involve me pulling up a certain scene within a movie or something and getting 2-3 ads that are a minute long each, unskippable, and potentially midrolls in there if the video is over 5 minutes. It just makes me close the video and think “yeah fuck that, I don’t need to watch that scene anymore”.

Overall point: the ads would be fine if they weren’t so excessive and intrusive

whatwhatwutyut,

Aren’t Office Suite apps not even released for Linux? I feel like I remember having to use the web based apps, and not by choice

whatwhatwutyut,

Im pretty sure it is using the sites’ own descriptions of themselves

whatwhatwutyut,

Yep, the reddit community had (and still has, afaik) a community gathered list of providers in each state where community members had had luck getting sterilized.

I found my OBGYN through this list and actually have my hysterectomy a week from today. Minimal convincing of the doctor necessary - just explained why I wanted it (terrible, heavy periods with heavy cramps AND I never want kids) and she essentially said “your body, your choice” and got me scheduled. Had to wait a month due to insurance requiring a wait period but no other issues.

whatwhatwutyut,

“Too risky” is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)

whatwhatwutyut,

To make the years mirror better maybe? That’s really all I can think of. 2012->2021 has the flip of the last two numbers

whatwhatwutyut,

No, it couldn’t. Because men excluding women from tech in the first place is wholly excluding them - there isn’t another tech industry they can participate in. Men are being excluded from a single event when there are many other events doing the SAME THING that they are encouraged to attend.

Not saying I agree one way or the other, but the argument you make about the logic is not sound.

whatwhatwutyut,

Too often internal biases make men look like the “best candidate,” even if a man and woman of equal skills are presented.

And the reason people don’t like your “positive” reason for wanting more women in the office is because the way you worded it made you sound like a creep who just wants more women around to ogle at, rather than seeing them as equal.

whatwhatwutyut,

Yeah, the assumptions come from somewhere. From having men ogling at me since I began growing breasts. Women are constantly sexualized and I have 100% heard people say that they wouldn’t mind their company hiring more women because they like to look at them. I never even said that’s what you do, I said that’s what your wording made it sound like. So if anyone made assumptions here, it is you.

In regards to the tech interviews - I don’t see how you didn’t think about the possibility of both a woman and a man answering the question correctly. We then return to the problem of “similar candidates, who will get picked?” Which, in the past, would have always been the man. Assuming they even asked a woman in for an interview.

whatwhatwutyut,

Why exactly are you putting shoes into boots and not feet??

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines