Asklemmy

Seems like a shame to throw away and must have a use.

While shopping on Amazon for my usual old spice bearglove smelling system, I've gotten burned with what I'm getting. I want the blue stuff and I keep getting this white stuff. I don't care if they took the aluminum off, I'm not willing to try that again. Last time I tried it my armpits got extremely irritated. I'm not a sissyfus type of person, but hey if someone was poking you in the armpits that would hurt.

So here I am thinking...hmm deodorant is the blue stuff! Antiperspirant is the white stuff. But no. Now there seems no difference. So does anyone have a good aroma deodorant that not white irritation based for me to try from Amazon?

With all of the sketchy products Amazon has and their bad practices, I’m really considering getting rid of Amazon. The only thing I will really miss is the fast shipping.

My reasoning is that I don’t use Prime benefits outside of shipping because I don’t play live service games anymore, and lots of local stores price match.

For those of you who have ditched Amazon(or not), what’s your reasoning and advice?

Any input is appreciated, thank you.

Besides Tuvax being eliminated in voyager

I'm pretty open to all varieties as long as the narrators voice isn't terrible.

Currently using Busuu for Spanish, German, French, and Russian and would like advice on other languages to take up learning whether Busuu has them or if not I’ll then use Tandem.

I just stumbled across this post linking to this article. In its reporting, the article keeps alternating between short descriptions of events and short quotes by people somewhat involved in the case.

Wilson's friend tried CPR, but it was too late.
Det. Marc McLeod: It sounded like it started off near the door … and went backwards. Like she was trying to get away or there was some sort of struggle.
Austin Police Officers Marc McLeod and Jonathan Riley worked the case from the beginning.
Det. Marc McLeod: Whoever shot her at that point stood over top of her and shot her at least once.
Investigators wondered who could have murdered this promising young athlete. As they canvassed the immediate area, police discovered a possible clue. Wilson's expensive racing bicycle had been discarded in the bushes.
Det. Jonathan Riley: So, at that point … OK. Is this a burglary, a robbery gone wrong?

I've seen this style of reporting in other English-language news reports before, and found it quite confusing.

So, my questions: is this style of reporting common in English-language media, or maybe just in the US, or is it more of an outlier? And what do you think about it, as an English native speaker or as a non-native speaker like me? Do you like it, dislike it, neither?

I already know the replies are gonna make me feel sad 😭

.……?

I have started listening to random American city council meetings lately for white noise. Since they're all bureaucratic-flavored boredom anyway.

I am failing to see the interest in having tons of IOT devices to manage, connect, segment, etc… Why would someone want to do it? To be clear, I have friends deep in it but… I still don’t understand. Can anyone try to explain the magic I am failing to see?

Edit: Thank you all for sharing your experiences! The ones I found more interesting are those that can easily translate in reducing or tracking consumption. The rest I hear but makes more sense when I look at it from an hobbyist perspective.

This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

On my old phone I had an issue with the proximity sensor and front facing camera. This led me to holding my phone backwards to take photos and being unable to hang up phone calls.

I think I put up with this for a year and a half.

I did end up figuring out the issue with the proximity sensor but opening up my phone to reconnect the camera module was too much effort for me.

Last night I fell down a flight of stairs and rolled my ankle bad. It's black and blue and swollen but my s/o has no sympathy for me already. In context I only ask her to help me to the bathroom. Besides crawling, which I do now, should I duke it out more? I just don't understand, I can't physically put weight on it(without involuntarily screaming).

• Being a team player: where I am it means listening to boring stories of the office gossip, who happens to be management’s favorite. This person has been here 20 years and is not going to leave till she retires, think another 20 years. I find her draining and don’t understand how she cannot shut up. She is like a 14 year old. Nobody ever contradicts her and her talking sessions can last 40 minutes.

• Doing my job: this would mean getting report, staying there for 3 minutes tops as a courtesy and then getting up to do my job. This would also mean I work more than them, because I start before them and go home at the same time like the rest of my coworkers.

Before you answer do consider: where I work there are usually very good ratios and I usually have a helper and that takes a considerable amount of job off my hands. Were I to work at another unit, I’d have to invariably work more.

I’m not sure I want to do my job, I don’t see what would I gain from it. The obvious choice here seems to be to become like the rest of my coworkers and pretend to pay attention to the gossip: you get away with working less.

I don’t know, maybe you see advantages waking up to do my job?

If you ever were in a situation like this, what did you do?

to state the obvious, I cannot do both, because it drains me.

My brother got me a Ted figure knowing I love the movie(s) and the new TV show, he had it sent to my home and it seems during transit that the head/neck joint piece broke in two.

Is there anything I can do, or alternatives to these? Thank you!

Edit: thank you all for the advice!

Or, would you say most women actually perfer submissive men?

To be more specific, I'm talking about men who are submissive in their role in the relationship as a partner and also sexually.

It's an interesting, I guess, maybe taboo sort of topic that I would like opinions on.

Thank you for reading.

This is a debate, not an argument, let's be adults about this. [Insert political joke]

1. “The Intimidator” The Intimidator is an individual who steals energy by force. In order to get an energy boost, the Intimidator may be very loud, may yell, or may use violence. Ultimately, the Intimidator gets his or her energy by forcing people to pay attention to him or her.

This tactic draws more energy to the intimidator because when we are treated violently or yelled at, we cannot help but focus on the intimidator. All of this fearful focus passes our energy over to the Intimidator. This is the most aggressive of the control dramas.

Naturally, after a hostile interaction with an Intimidator, you will likely walk away feeling defeated and deflated. The Intimidator, however, feels empowered, boosted by the energy he or she has stolen from you.

2. “The Interrogator” The Interrogator, like the Intimidator, also has an aggressive approach to stealing energy. However, the Interrogator does not rely on overt violence or intimidation, but rather uses excessive questioning and judgment in conversations.

When you are around an Interrogator, you will often feel highly criticized. The Interrogator will question your decisions, your motives, and your effectiveness. This strategy, in turn, keeps you sucked into the interaction, paying attention to the Interrogator.

In these interactions, you will feel the need to constantly explain yourself, and you will feel the need to justify your choices and actions. This extra attention sends your energy over to the Interrogator.

After spending prolonged time with an Interrogator, you will likely feel very drained, and walk away from the conversation feeling beaten down, even though the Interrogator did not use violence against you.

3. “The Aloofs” This one here is my personal default control drama…

Aloof people do not use a hostile or aggressive approach in their ability to siphon energy from others. Instead, Aloofs rely on being vague and distant to capture attention and energy.

An Aloof is more likely to keep information from people. This, in turn, causes other people to be interested in them and approach them to “pry” information from them. It is a highly passive way of getting attention from other people.

“Playing hard to get” is the game of the Aloof. An Aloof will frequently leave you feeling that he or she is playing games with you, and must be chased.

4. “The Poor Me” The Poor Me, like the Aloof, relies on a passive approach to gaining energy from others, but in a different way.

Poor Mes capture our attention by making us feel guilty and responsible for them. They often complain about their problems and issues in life, but not for the sake of getting solutions. Rather, the Poor Me complains for the sole purpose of gaining our attention.

When dealing with a Poor Me, we often feel like we have to “take care of” the Poor Me or we must help them in some way. We may feel we have to listen to his or her sob story over and over again, and that his or her problem is our fault somehow. This is how the Poor Me steals energy from others.

Snagged from this blog. https://raiseyourvibrationtoday.com/energy-work/the-control-dramas-celestine-prophecy/

The Celestine Prophecy has some great thoughts in it.

I guess I'm generally 3 and 4. The book talk about how each drama is created by the opposite.

I know there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding YouTube's recommendation algorithms, but I can't seem to find a better alternative. What are the ways y'all find videos that are of interest?

I know we could use RSS and subscribe to our desired channels and get a better experience than YT's own subscription system, but what about channel/video discovery, those that you've never seen before? Is there a better way to find a video that might be interesting to you without kneeling before the almighty algorithm? Half of the recommended page on YT seems irrelevant to me, but I can't seem to find a better alternative.

Hello everyone,

I play acoustic guitar on weekend for fun and I was wondering If there are any apps for guitar on smartphone. Now I use tunerly to tune easily the guitar and it's great. I check tabs on the site of Ultimateguitar with the smartphone but I find it not very easy to use (I have to check it in "Desktop" mode by smartphone to read the tabs better). Do you know any other good apps for guitar? Thanks

I often hear, "You should never cheap out on a good office chair, shoes, underpants, backpack etc.." but what are some items that you would feel OK to cheap out on?

This can by anything from items such as: expensive clothing brands to general groceries.

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?

Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.

"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.

The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."

I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.

What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.

So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?