Most important here is the dabbing.

I don’t have a source on hand, but I’m sure that a pronounced chin has been found in studies as male attractiveness symbol

Also what no one has said yet, if you put two identical people next to each other, same mindset, same character, same visuals etc etc, but the one is wealthy and the other is poor, for 99% of people the wealthier one is more sexually attractive. Our brains view access to resources as a desirable quality.

And so, why would a rom com that is literally supposed to be about attractive people, make them purposefully less attractive? There’s basically no reason.

Honestly I can’t see why you’d choose average, non-wealthy. If you want quiet and peaceful, you’re sure to get it when wealthy, just pay for a large residence and security on the outskirts, then stay inside. Use disguises/body doubles when going out. Except for a little organizational overhead, which you can also pay people to do for you, you can have everything you want when you’re famous and wealthy.

“We” should vacuum the house! *wink* *wink*

It’s a metaphor for people who smell whipped cream all the time, they should check on top of their head.

Of course, but then it’s still not the kind of accidental ghosting you talked about.

It’s definitely not accidental. Ghosting simply doesn’t happen if someone is truly interested romantically. They might be like “this guy’s nice” and be accidentally ghosting, but in that case it’s not a good romantic relationship anyway. If it’s “this guy’s so hot/amazing”, accidental ghosting will not happen, because the thoughts will be occupied in trying to be with the guy.

This book contains the latest research of what makes a man attractive to a woman:

https://annas-archive.org/md5/d7b5ceb2699ed79b4b4db586ef435eb0

It’s pretty high-level, but important knowledge nonetheless. All of it is true in my experience.

I mean, I guess it’ll come to me.

However, this is an incredibly important mindset, if it means what I think it means. You have to truly be ok with being alone for the rest of your life. Just do whatever gives you most pleasure/fulfillment and talk to girls wherever you see them incidentally. Just go about your life, put yourself in situations that you like where other people exist, and strike up conversations.

It’s completely ok to talk to someone at the supermarket, on the street, wherever. Many women fantasize about it in a romantic way. Many women obviously want to be left alone. You have to calibrate your empathy and figure out who is interested or not. But you are allowed to approach and state your interest. Just “dont be creepy”™

I used the weight value on bricklink.com which I assume is correct :)

That’s exactly the weight value I used in my original calculation :)

What do you mean bulk density?

I calculated it, this looks like 32 x 48 blocks, so a total volume of roughly 15.6 m³. Considering that they’re going to be loose in the box and not perfectly stacked, I’d double that volume. This would result in a box set, if it were a cube, with ~3m sides. The weight would be 10.53 tons.

Not really though? Non-existence of anything is the default. Existence of something puts the burden of proof on whoever claims this something exists. “Quantum mechanics” is a bad example, it’s a set of theories, not a single theory (like “a god exists”). Depending on what is being claimed, you can easily show people papers, such as this one which shows experimental observable proof of principles of quantum theory.

At one point, quantum mechanics didn’t exist and wasn’t generally accepted. Physicists like Heisenberg took upon them the burden of proof and provided it.

General acceptance is how it is treated since then, by non-physicists, but it is simply possible to follow the proof of it if you really wanted to. There are experiments that have been performed and that can be performed again that create observable evidence of the principles of quantum mechanics.

The burden of proof still lies on proponents of quantum mechanics. What you’re talking about is more of a societal shortcut, accepting that the burden of proof has been verified by other people, not by yourself, as it’s impossible to go deep enough into every subject to actually verify every proof you come across. That’s why specialization exists.

The difference is that 99% of physicists confirm the proof of quantum mechanics. Specialists on religion are all very much divided on which god(s) or whether at all one exists, and no proof exists for any religious theories.

It’s funny that you used the phrase “this side of the fence”, because the fence in that metaphor is exactly the line marking the territory of “enshittification” and “anti-enshittification” ^^

deleted by creator

Because more medium businesses will fill the need, people that are not at the cap yet. And qualified workers, equipment or work areas are all resources, which eventually will be reallocated to whatever is in demand. I didn’t specify a timeframe with my “temporarily”, but I was talking decades, i.e. also enough time for new workers to be trained.

My client gives it a maximum height with the easy possibility to zoom in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s why I said temporarily. If there’s demand for millions of more cars, capitalists will find a way to provide the supply very quickly. There’ll be less demand for idk, private jets or sth billionaires buy, and the resources previously used for the fulfillment of billionaire demand will start going to fulfilling the demand of the new things desired by lower classes that now have more money. Obviously it’ll not happen instantly because stuff needs to be repurposed, new supply paths created, but eventually, the resource usage will be equal again.

You’re talking (partly) about two different things.

The simple truth is that our planet only has a certain amount of replenishable resources which leads to only a certain standard of living being possible for a certain amount of people.

Thus, the problem you’re talking about only gets solved by reducing the amount of people or the standard of living, globally.

The problem OP is talking about is inequality in the standard of living between people.

Outlawing billionaires alleviates both problems, but the general resources problem only temporarily until the people with lower standard of living now raise theirs by having more resources available, which is what you talk about.

Inequality gets improved permanently by this, so it’s a good change for that problem.

The limited resource problem you’re talking about, though, doesn’t get solved by this at all, there might be a short dip in less resources used while resources are being reallocated, but then it’ll likely go back to before, because most people use as much resources as they can to make their lives as nice as they can.

To solve our problems, both population as well as standard of living need to be limited. Because if either one is allowed to grow infinitely, resources will never suffice long-term.