Folding Ideas has come a long way since then.

The side profile doesn’t show it, but carrying the cross gave Jesus severe scoliosis.

“Now let’s see what Squidward does.”

who still wants a television in this century?

This is so out-of-touch it’s unreal.

—Someone who doesn’t still want a television in this century

??? The fuck? Where did this come from? I was just talking about why I didn’t expand upon what “that” was in my comment because I’d wrongly assumed “that” was what we were all collectively talking about.

I kind of just assumed that’s what we were all talking about because that’s the entire point of the post. (Besides idling, which is stupid regardless of what gas station you’d be waiting in line at.)

Well yes, more people longer lines, but I wonder if the Costco is specifically problematic in comparison to other gas stations in those areas like the meme is making fun of.

I can’t recall seeing a Costco or a Sam’s Club gas station being packed when other gas stations were fine, so I wonder if that’s an especially high-density thing.

Taking that at face value: does the “to save $2 on gas” part apply at that point, though? I imagine if you’re waiting an hour for gas at Costco in Seattle rush hour, the other gas stations are near-equally saturated. Because the crux of the meme is clearly that the drivers are at the Costco when they could go somewhere else with a substantially lower wait to the point that $2 is meaningless in comparison.

(But also, if they are idling, then they definitely shouldn’t be regardless of what station they’re at. That part is obvious.)

Interesting. I wonder if that gets more problematic very close to the Interstate or in very large cities.

Is that a common thing? I’ve almost never driven past a Costco station where there wasn’t a pump available (usually several). I know the part about “30 minutes” is hyperbole, but I don’t think a bunch of cars congesting Costco stations instead of spreading out to other ones is an actual problem that’s regularly happening in reality.

“FAQs:”

“There’s more than a 50% chance that Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were sexually molested by multiple (you decided to pluralize it; not me) Epstein affiliates in Hollywood” is a massive stretch that you present zero evidence for and confidently assert. It’s becoming increasingly clear with your responses that you genuinely have a problem.

Did I make you uncomfortable with consuming the lives of the Olsen twins like a cheap and disposable drug?

Dude holy shit, seek help. I have never once in my life given an iota of a shit about the Olsen twins or anything they’ve been involved with. I might’ve seen one episode of Full House by coincidence, and I played an nth-hand copy of Mary-Kate and Ashley: Sweet 16 – Licensed to Drive for the PS2 two decades after its release (when the twins were nearly 40 and the publisher and developer had been defunct for years) for about 30 minutes as a gag. This is the first time I can remember seeing a picture of the Olsen twins in years, and I only responded to your comment because it’s so insane (I genuinely knew so little that I assumed I’d completely missed out on a scandal and tried in good faith to find out what happened).

Your willingness to assume anything without evidence as long as it feels correct to you is staggering.

Removed by mod

my SPECULATIVE STATEMENT.

Pfffffffffffffft. What a chode. “I hedged with ‘most likely’ bro so you can’t poke holes in the ridiculous bullshit I’m asserting with zero evidence.” You’d be really good at JAQing off. “Were the Olsen twins sold into sex slavery on Epstein’s Island? We can’t say for sure, but it’s impossible to rule out.”

Yeah, no, I totally agree that sexualization by the public when they were underage (even as adults) probably took a psychological toll, as it probably does on a lot of teen stars (and IIRC it was quite bad with Mary-Kate & Ashley).

That is a completely different statement from “they were most likely molested by some of Epstein’s Hollywood buddies”.

That’s a seriously bold claim that you don’t bother to support at all and just take as common knowledge. After doing a few minutes of searching: what the absolute fuck are you even talking about?

Genuinely the most I can find are a small handful of trashy outlets like The Sun (at the least trashy) talking about a baseless Twitter accusation against Bob Saget after his death and then – even as trashy as they are – unanimously arriving at the conclusion that Saget unequivocally did nothing to them. (To that end, I can’t even find anything about Saget having ever interacted with Epstein, so there’s a baseless, nonsense Twitter accusation – only discussed by the trashiest outlets who have every incentive to imply that it’s true for clicks but instead deny it completely – about a man with no connection to Epstein.)

No names, no sources (probably because there’s jack shit), no anything, so what exactly the fuck are you basing “most likely” on?

“Streets behind”, even.

I’m happy that the US is adopting metric.

I don’t know if you’re just not from the US, but this dual labeling of groceries has been ongoing for decades. The US formally began transitioning to metric during the 1970s and has had plenty of dual uses ever since; it got cut short due to a mix of public apathy and active public disapproval, and when it was on its last legs, Reagan axed the metrification board early in his first term (not a defense, but it was seriously barely doing anything by that time because of public unwillingness to change). Rulers have inches and centimeters; there are imperial and metric tools; kids do learn metric in schools (usually in the context of a science class); etc. You aren’t expected to know metric as an average functioning adult, but it’s everywhere and useful to know in US society – usually just kind of in the background like here.

TL;DR: “Is adopting” said in 2026 in response to soda labels is a steep misunderstanding of metrification in the US.