That could be a ladder to climb up to the top bunk.

I’ve only ever heard people pronounce it with the L sound, and dictionary.com only lists one pronunciation, and it includes the L. Despite the word being borrowed from Spanish, we didn’t keep the pronunciation like we did with, e.g., “tortilla”.

Yes.

Though I obviously don’t speak for everyone.

Taking a drug that doesn’t work is not necessarily the same as taking a placebo. I have suffered a lot from drug side effects, and some have hurt me long-term, years after I stopped taking the medicine. I am incredibly wary of taking anything new, even before all the horrors of 2025. With even worse approval processes, I expect that a lot of harmful and potentially debilitating or deadly stuff is going to end up on pharmacy shelves soon.

Now I’ve actually finished the article. That intro just ticked me off enough that I needed to say something before continuing. :-P

The study they cited shows that, surprise surprise, people need a break. That makes total sense. But the whole 55 hours a week thing? They seem to be advocating for people going to work for 55 hours a week, rather than the typical 40 hours for a full-time job. That’s total baloney, though. There is so much work to do outside of my job. They mentioned volunteering and child rearing, but what about the basic work to live?

People have to eat, so they have to prepare food. They have to go to the grocery store. They have to do laundry. They have to clean their house. If they have a yard, there is yard work. There is time spent grooming oneself. If a person has kids, they may need to help their kids with homework. People have to shop for other necessities, like clothes. People spend time commuting to and from work. There is so much necessary stuff to do outside of a job that I would consider “work” because it’s neither sleeping nor leisure.

So what is the point of this article? “God was right” that people need a break sometimes? Or “God was right” that the break should only be one day in 7? Are they seriously advocating for moving to a 55-hour work week?

The way they read into the scripture verse was really weird, too. They pulled a lot of meaning that’s not textually there out of “Six days thou shalt work.” The act of working has some inherent value now beyond what you’re actually accomplishing? They’re also conflating people not wanting to do any work with people not liking their jobs. Sure, a person could find meaning in being a janitor at a hospital, but not all jobs have some net social benefit like that. A person working at a call center to scam people doesn’t have any deeper meaning to find and doesn’t have to like their job.

The whole thing sounds like they’re saying that everyone needs to shut up and be abused at work, working long hours, and if we’re not happy about it, it’s our own fault for not liking our jobs, and we need to suck it up and get with the program because Fox News said that God said so.

No thanks.

Most units of time are based on nature. A day is one rotation of the Earth. A month is the moon’s orbit. A year is the Earth’s path around the sun.

But a week? There’s no natural explanation for it.

Well, given that a moon cycle is about 28 days long, each quarter of that is 7 days. Before we had electric lights at night, most people were very aware of the moon phase.

That font looks like Open Dyslexic, which is designed to be easier to read for people with dyslexia. So no, this isn’t AI just based on the font.

https://opendyslexic.org/

I don’t really like reading things with that font, though. I have a harder time with it. I prefer Atkinson Hyperlegible for an easily-readable font.

https://www.brailleinstitute.org/freefont/

I’m not familiar with the source material, so I could be off base, but I didn’t read this as misogynistic or objectifying. It seems to me that the driver didn’t want to drive 4 hours each way to pick up the passenger, even if they’re friends, so she’s punishing the passenger with the bumpy road. Especially with a chest that big, all the jiggling is likely to hurt, or at best be very uncomfortable. I didn’t read this as the driver having prurient motives, but to be fair, I’m not attracted to breasts. ::shrug::

Right movie, wrong character. Gus Gorman, played by Richard Pryor, skimmed the money from discount Gene Hackman (Ross Webster, played by Robert Vaughn).

You mean the Bell Riots that started September 1, 2024? I’m not sure how to tell you this, but that didn’t happen on schedule.

the output is always going to be an average of the input recipes.

Yeah, that’s a problem for most recipes, especially baking.

That’s pretty good, but… how much pie crust does it make? The recipe only says to roll out one circle of crust, and then once the filling is in it, suddenly you’re crimping the edges of the top crust to the bottom. It’s missing crucial steps and information.

I would never knowingly use an AI-generated recipe. I’d much rather search for one that an actual human has used, and even then, I read through it to make sure it makes sense and steps aren’t missing.

The cream would rehydrate them.

I have it on pretty good authority that everyone

That’s where your comment went wrong. Just about everything that anyone claims “everyone” does is false. Maybe “lots of people,” “most people,” or even “by far, most people” do a thing, but literally “everyone”? BS.

I don’t like looking at breasts, and I have absolutely no interest in them.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a medical intervention justified by observational data must be in want of verification through a randomised controlled trial.

This was a great read. Thanks.

That depends on how you define breasts. From Wikipedia:

The platypus’ mammary glands lack teats, with milk released through pores in the skin. The milk pools in grooves on the mother’s abdomen, allowing the young to lap it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus