Yeah dawg, I think you’re just not very good at researching your appliances. Put a little time in to learn to sniff out bots and find reviews that aren’t advertisements. Look at 4 star reviews. I hate to say it, but look at reddit; it’s a legitimately great research resource for that kind of thing if you can recognize ads.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of touchscreen WiFi bullshit out there to spend stupid money on, but there are a few diamonds in the rough if you’re willing to look.

I can’t speak to outside the US in terms of exact models, but the techniques transfer. Don’t trust brand names, find reviews of specific models.The internet is full of dorks who go on forums to geek out on appliances, you just have to find them.

The horse

Sure it does, you just have to buy the stuff that’s expensive because it’s quality, not expensive because it has WiFi and touchscreens and stuff.

There are tons of models out there that cost half that much. Sure, there are fancy ones with wifi and touch screens you can spend $1000+ on, but a basic washer is like $4-600.

Pretty sure mine are passive with a little speaker that selectively transmits low decibel sounds. If the batteries die, it’s still passive protection, I just don’t get to hear people talking.

Give it another 15,000 years, it’ll get more interesting

I think I paid around $1200 for my Maytag commercial, not one single problem in the last 5ish years.

People have mentioned energy use and safety, but adjusting for inflation they were also way more expensive, a washing machine in the 50s was over $1000 in today’s dollars. If you’re willing to spend that much, you can find great reliable appliances with long lives.

Bottom up is better, the stem becomes a useful handle for those last few bites

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme

No way, velociraptor was way smaller, you’re thinking of utahraptor

I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.

Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.

People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.

But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.

Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.

Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.

I think you may have missed the joke, look at the bottom right corner of the sign

Is this a meme? Or an anti-meme?

So what? Why did you think this was some kind of accomplishment?

It’s So Easy!

EDIT: Damn, I figured the capitalization would’ve made the joke more obvious

Google “ferengi rule 34”

Well, the tanks are replaced with ICE vehicles

The theory I’ve read is that lots of people are into a bit of the taboo/forbidden partner aspect of an attraction they have toward a real person in their life: their neighbor, platonic friend, co-worker, etc. But most of these connections don’t really feel all that taboo when it’s someone else, so the “step-” angle is just a generic stand in that carries the forbidden aspect without going too far.

Clearly they meant Non-Alcoholic