Depends. If you’re streaming Dire Staits on a $250,000 stereo. You’ve probably missallocated funds approaching a moronic level from a functionality perspective. However, if you’ve got half a billion in the bank, I’d say it’s a far more wholesome idiocy than for example, real estate. Money inherently means less to rich people. The difference of a few thousand to tens of thousands are, bewilderingly, fairly inconsequential to many people. I’d just assume they put that money into listening to music rather than super pacs or something. Hell, maybe they’ll actually hear what the musicians are saying and they’ll actually grow a little.

The issue with audio is the same issue with all hobbies. Spending a lot doesn’t make you an automatic expert, let alone even know what you’re doing. An expensive bat doesn’t make a bad player good, an expensive stove doesn’t make a bad cook good, expensive clothes doesn’t make an ugly person beautiful, an expensive running shoes don’t make an out of shape person healthier.

I find shitting on audiophiles particularly annoying because it’s smugness on both sides of the equation. The people who buy in think they’re better than everyone just like the people who see the con think they’re better than the rubes. If I had to pick a side though, I’d honestly pick the audiophiles, because at least they’re having fun.

I don’t know why I thought of this, but they make telescoping poles for wasp spray. I wonder if any other type of aerosol can would fit in them, or why you would even want to do that?

If it’s kids, it’s always rape.

The leading cause of death for Roman Emperors, and most rulers throughout history, was violent death, primarily assassination or execution, followed by suicide…

You know, maybe we should consider this option more thoroughly.

Yes, whenever I’m selecting a location to shoot a bunch of people I always prefer one that’s vacant.

At the very least, if you’re trying to persuade to have kids, people who have chosen to not have kids, those people are not childless, they are child free. Their will is to be without child. They are not failing at having kids, they are succeeding at not having them.

Childless, child free.

Which is kind of what I’m getting at. I’ve read that we have the equivalent to as much as a crayons worth of micro plastics in our brain. A crayon, while not particularly scientific, puts a pretty fine point on the issue in an intuitive sense, and also addresses the cumulative nature of the pollution. By the head line it seems like they are only talking about a certain sized micro plastic, and without further context they might as well just say “a lot”.

“Particles” is almost useless as a measure. They’re not movie tickets, I’m not interested in their discreet number. Give me a defined quantity. Is 10,000 particles 1 gram, half a gram, a tenth of a gram, what?

“You’re eating far too many particles of salt, we’re going to need to to cut back by at least 2,000 particles every lunar cycle.”

Historically I still “lose” these types of arguments as my willfully ignorant interlocutor spams potential strawman and ad hominem “arguments” until they feel sufficiently convinced that my pesky facts and I are safe to ignore.

In my experience there are very few people worth arguing with, as there are very few people willing to argue in good faith. Most people see arguing as a battle to be won or lost rather than a mechanism by which to vet assumptions. How can you expect to argue with a person who is unable to argue with themselves?