Sorry - I don’t think I worded that well. I’d try dates with folks who I didn’t feel chemistry. When I say chemistry, I mean social - not sexual. There are a handful of people that I click with socially, and then the vast majority that I don’t.

I ended up marrying one of the few people I do click with socially.

I’ve never really considered sexual chemistry before. In my experience, sex is an activity like many others: you need to practice to make it work; when you’re doing it with someone else, there’s a learning curve to get it right for both of you; and sometimes one or both of you don’t get it right, so it kinda sucks.

Asexual is a tag that came around long after I’d left the dating pool. I’m not really familiar with what it means.

Nope. I thought maybe I could find chemistry with people if I got to know them better, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. At least for me.

Going out to bars when I was a student. I wanted to spend time with people, not spend money on the outing.

Not pretended, but when I was dating, I’d say yes to a first date with anyone who seemed vaguely compatible. I’d try to make some chemistry happen. It didn’t.

It’s a preview, so that doesn’t seem too surprising. Like the post says, you can switch back to the regular client pretty easily.

This post has a lot of serious answers to what is essentially a “no”:

In the UK, there is a non-virtual contingency plan, or at least there was. If the internet shuts down, the people who know how it works will meet up in a pub outside London and decide what to do, says Murdoch.

“I don’t know if this is still the case. It was quite a few years ago and I was never told which pub it was.”

Our society over-values sex, but there’s a pretty hefty biological component as well. Bodies want what they want. Different people feel it to different degrees at different times of their life.

Physical activity. Go play a sport. Get platonically sweaty with a bunch of other people. I found that helped. Hanging out with people sort of worked for me as well, but not to the same degree.

If you’re in a social leagues, you might even be able to meet someone.

I’d echo what others have said: if you’re having difficulty forming and maintaining romantic relationships, you might want to try therapy or some deep introspection.

Planet Money did a really interesting episode on money in Gaza. Basically, bank branches don’t really exist, and physical paper money is really hard to come by, so getting money into Gaza is really hard.

Any money you donate would need to get past various embargoes to get to a Palestinian bank, then be passed to a person who can’t really access it.

What? Taiwan doesn’t want to give up its only strategic advantage? I’m shocked.

/uj

I’m curious how long it would take to build the supply chains and fabs to make the 50% things a reality.

Your nose yearns for the mines.

I feel a little relieved to stop using it, tbh. Every time I read the label, I couldn’t help but think it must be bad. I’ve found that Head and Shoulders is enough to keep flakes in check (it wasn’t before the T-Gel), so I’m just worrying about that now. 😂

T-Gel is no longer available in Canada possibly elsewhere. Apparently there’s a lawsuit.

What service generates it?

The Wired story says the same thing but with more context and less “trust me, bro”.

They are both interesting reads.

Everything that dude says passes the sniff test: it seems like it could be explained as a run of the mill criminal spamming operation. The Secret Service story doesn’t offer evidence that there’s anyone extraordinary about it.

FWIW the dude also makes a number of unsupported statements that seem to be “trust me bro, I’m a hacker”. The statements aren’t outlandish, so maybe.

but agreed, the name is not informative

From the wikipedia link:

Marshall Rosenberg … explains that the name was chosen to connect his work to the word “nonviolence” that was used by the peace movement, thus showing the ambition to create peace on the planet. Meanwhile, Marshall did not like that name since it described what NVC is not, rather than what NVC is. In fact, this goes against an important principle in the fourth component of NVC, i.e. requests. Specifically, in an NVC request, one should ask for what one does want, not what one doesn’t want. Because of this, a number of alternative names have become common, most importantly giraffe language, compassionate communication or collaborative communication.

Ironic, indeed. It looks like it got that name from what Rosenberg was doing at the time, rather than an attribute of the system itself.

I really like the system. Knowing that it was part of a utopian counter-culture nonviolent peace movement makes it even better.

I haven’t heard it described as nonviolent communication, but yes.

I work with software development groups. It’s very helpful in stating a series of facts, separating them from the speaker, and limiting emotional involvement. When we’re requesting work from each other, it’s helpful, because it cushions demands and makes it easier to talk about what will happen if the request isn’t completed.

When stuff goes wrong, it’s even better. It makes it harder to blame. It also reduces absolute statements and hyperbole.

Generally, it reduces the emotion in a conversation and turns it into a discussion of alternatives and outcomes.

👉 complaint