Nicely put. I simply tailored my way of speaking to the audience (judging by the image and the caption).

Everything you wrote is of course true. However, I feel like you missed the essence of what I meant.

People often pair up thoughtlessly, based on looks, based on instinct. This is biologically correct. After all, we are animals. However, we have one more trick up our sleeve. A very highly developed prefrontal cortex. It gives us the ability to delve into the personality of the person we intend to commit to for a longer period. We can talk to them, and we often also have the opportunity to see how they react in various situations, especially if we live with that person for a while. Then, after the decision has already been made, instead of moaning that “she looks at me nastily when I’m tired” or even worse “she looks at me nastily when I’m tired, and she doesn’t even work herself,” we can either try (based on mutual work within the relationship) to fix the situation or end the relationship. If, however, we did nothing to find out anything about our future partner, or worse, we just “went for looks and fuck the rest”, then we only have ourselves to blame.

That’s why I always say that I couldn’t be with a stupid person, because that would reflect badly on me. Fortunately, I don’t have that problem in my relationship.

In simple terms: This is only true if you have a stupid wife. However, being with a stupid person only reflects poorly on you, because you’re the one who made that decision and you’re still stuck in it.

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between rape, which is a physical assault, and a stare. Eyes don’t rape.

Showing parts of your body implies consent to be looked at, but it is not an invitation to touch or take pictures.

Exactly this.

You are mixing two things here. Staring is not assaulting. This thread here is about staring. Regarding sexual (or other physical) assault: anyone can be physically assaulted regardless of their gender or age. Nothing justifies it, but wearing or behaving provocatively blurs the boundaries. I won’t go deep into the details of human psycho-sexual intricacies, because this isn’t a place for this, and also, judging by the number of downvotes, I see that this topic might be too difficult for some individuals to comprehend.

Wearing a skirt implies consent. Clothes (or lack of them) are a form of communication. For example, my well-endowed wife wears revealing clothes if she feels comfortable with the attention and if it is an appropriate time to do so. On the other hand, if she has a business meeting at the office (especially important during meetings with people from other cultures), she will never do so, because that way she would send an inappropriate message. In this way, she takes responsibility for her behavior.

Red Hat 5.0 “Hurricane” from 1997. I still have the CD.

I would rather suggest checking “about: support”, not “about: config”.

This reminds me of a certain Star Trek TNG episode titled “The Arsenal of Freedom”. Especially one specific moment of the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmDm8MVhZiQ&t=148s

I’m using https://anytype.io/. Offline applications for all major systems, synchronization out of the box.

Charging Bull also known as Bull of Wall Street

The Ribbon isn’t the worst thing. It tried to solve the clutter of the previous interface, although I always preferred the old one.

Here is an interesting take on the problem of modern interfaces: https://datagubbe.se/decusab/

Until there is proof or external verification of the results, it’s just another case of Chinese propaganda.

Maybe you should try Anytype. It’s Open Source, encrypted, has applications for major OSes, provides synchronization, allows export of documents to Markdown and PDF. Sometimes it’s rough on the edges, but I think it has a potential.

We are living in a funny world, where nudity must be tagged and generally hidden, but there is wide acceptance to show violence.

I was referring to the same words…

No, the sad thing is that he is right. We could coexist with other species, but instead we choose to exploit the natural environment to its limits.

I agree. Additionally, I don’t believe that, without controlled depopulation (restrictive birth control, not killing people), we can achieve climate stability and solve other issues like increasing pollution of the entire environment. I believe that the population should have stopped growing in the 90s (at about 4 billion), of course, this number is a hunch, not knowledge.

We have reached a point far beyond sustainability; we are on artificial life support. Without this support, even getting dressed would be a challenge, given the lack of a natural and clean source of textile materials. Nearly all clothes are made of plastic or contain some plastic additives. As we wash these clothes in our machines, we inadvertently consume plastic particles in our food and drink.

Speaking of machines, the devices produced today have an increasingly shorter lifespan. Simultaneously, the recycling of these devices is problematic, as our waste is often massively exported to third-world countries.

Another concern is the escalating scarcity of drinking water, among various other challenges. The list goes on and on. Anyone expecting the Earth to accommodate an unlimited number of people is plain insane or doesn’t understand the complexity of the issue.

We must act now on all the fields, even those unpopular ones (like population control).

Those who are against population control, please take a look at this initiative: https://populationmatters.org/ and its patrons (like Sir David Attenborough and Jane Goodall).