sparky_z

The explanation I was once given (by an elderly female librarian at a bar, long story) is that all the nerves in the clitoris are just there to provide the same pro-mating pleasure signals as all the nerves in the male penis. But if they were spread throughout the entire ring of the vagina, (as they are throughout the penis) they would be extra painful during childbirth when the whole opening is stretched and torn. Extra nerves mean more exquisite pain signals (think paper cuts on the fingertips vs elsewhere.) It might even damage them long-term. Concentrating all the most sensitive nerves in a tiny spot at the top makes them available for pleasure during sex but minimizes damage and pain during childbirth.

You've never heard something selfless and good described as "noble"?

It's also acutely poisonous to dogs, so if you're a dog owner you already have to be careful not to leave anything sweetened with xylitol within reach. I personally won't buy anything with xylitol in it for that reason.

The shorted headline is ambiguously misleading. I first interpreted it as them essentially saying "We need to be punished".

I also have the sidebars constantly reappearing, and I don't have cookies disabled. It's really annoying.

It would take the typical English speaker many years of dedicated study to learn Mandarin Chinese to a level of fluency required to take advantage of any token savings. "Caveman speak" can be adopted instantly, by anyone (in, presumably, ~any language) with no study or time investment required.

If they started using that power to change what time they started every few months, you don't think that would cause logistical problems?

> leadership at Jellyfin decided to throw the blanket after a burning themselves out for free.

What does this mean?

In a sense, they do exactly that! But since there are only two single-digit numbers in binary, it makes for a pretty short table.

Sign of the times, I'm sad to say. The Internet is just chock full of them these days. It's gotten to the point where most of the articles on the NYTimes frontpage don't even mention him.

"If you haven't used your emergency go-bag in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your passport in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your grandmother's family photo album in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

"If you haven't used your safety deposit box in over a year, why do you want to use it now"?

It's confirmed in the DVD commentary. The stunt pilot had to do it at a high enough speed that it would "outrun" the rotor wash.

I don't follow your argument. Why would those facts make PSAs effective at changing consumer shopping habits?

If my response sounded like a non-sequiter to you, well, yours sounded like one to me. The article is not about whether retailers pay attention to shopper's habits, nor does it have anything to do with high prices.

Instead, it is entirely about whether advertising campaigns encouraging people to buy and consume less (for environmental reasons, not economic protest) actually change the behavior of the people who hear them. It concludes that they do not. Do you still beg to differ?