Yuh

“Old money” vs. “New money” is a particularly American concept, though.

Uh huh. So we’re in agreement. She won’t be allowed near the phone again.

Your nervous system has finite bandwidth. The extra movement and sensation signals drown out the “need to pee” signal, making it seem less urgent. It’s also why we rub the area around minor injuries to relieve pain.

AFAIK California doesn’t require a license for ebikes.

Throw in the fan theory that Disney’s version takes place thousands of years in the future.

You mean like… speaking to someone in the same room? While they’re looking at you? With their eyes?!

Goofy at the bottom

From the phrasing and context, I was expecting something else when I clicked.

Found the original panel, can’t find the whole comic.

NSFW obviously.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150607214351/http://www.imageweb.ws/media/images/3/aladdin-porn/aladdin-porn-311775.jpg

Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish recruitment office?

Assuming it survives the fall to the bottom of the elevator shaft, the building management should be able to retrieve it for you.

At first I thought this was an announcement from Microsoft.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Expressed greater intent to commit rape”

I would really like to know how they measured this. I get the feeling that the men being studied didn’t come out and state, “yes, I have a greater intent to rape” on a survey or something. The researchers must have been using something as a proxy for “intent to rape”.

I’d also like to see the stats for how many of the men have actually raped someone. For example, if 86% are rated as “more likely to rape” after watching porn, but 99.9% don’t rape anyone, then that would suggest there is no correlation between porn and rape.

Merde

Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

You should cut diagonally. If it makes a sandwich better, imagine what it can do for a novel.