Yes, but it gets weird if lane three (fast lane) goes straight but lane two (middle lane) wants the third exit or uturn.
If everyone yields to cars on their left, it works, but you gotta keep your eyes wide open and pay attention, and actually yield, all things Americans are loath to do.

The adults seems completely unimpressed. Weird.

Those were weird days. AQI north of 600 in SF.

Congratulations! Your video, Radiohead's "Videotape" is weird and amazing, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 15 Badge!

Your video, Radiohead's "Videotape" is weird and amazing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

Well, seen businesses out of old-boy networks get funded that were losing a lot of money so...not definitive.

But yes, weirdly, I agree with you. I didn't hear a single metric of profitability. Sometimes, folks want to think demand=profit. It can--but--it also just mean that your subsidizing your operations, running at a loss--and think you have business rather than a charity.

Webvan
Pets.com (before Chewy)
MoviePass
etc etc etc.

weird its all done right up against a building with windows

This is so much better than I'd anticipated. Go Conchy!

Also, I really like how the information was presented. It was clear, concise, and weird as hell.

My first exposure to Daft Punk was in 1997. Hanging out before concerts at First Avenue in Minneapolis, they'd always play weird videos and music pre-show. I was immediately intrigued by the video for Around the World, and was a fan of the group from that point on. I'm happy for them, they've had a wildly successful run, without falling prey to their own celebrity. Absolute legends.

I actually thought it might be some weird parody - I'm bad with faces and the thumbnail looked like Maya Rudolph. Realized immediately it was... not what I'd hoped for.

Now, you give me an instructional video on Rockwell Automation's Retro Encabulator, I'm fuckin' riveted.

Do dogs really lay on their back like that?

I feel like I've never seen that before.

How weird!

just saw the percentage of steam-powered and electric cars...
(#37 @ https://www.boredpanda.com/weird-history-twitter/?utm_source=duckduckgo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic)
...that were being driven by the populace. impressive.

know electric trollies were also a thing, but they were sabotaged by gasoline concerns (killed) because read the history of the one that use to run in our small mid-western town.

anyway...electric vehicles were viable then and if other concerns (like GMC) were kept at bay...100 years later we just might be driving all-electric vehicles (maybe flying them - we were supposed to have those by now).

necessity being the mother of invention, it only makes sense to keep the future (electric cars, solar-power, etc) alive. if the nation doesn't, china (or other visionaries) may capture the solar-driven land speeder market.

[trump is guilty btw. but GOP is GMC in that scenario. will be seen as a big mistake too. maybe 'big carrot' has something to do with it. he is orange.]