• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 28 days ago
cake
Cake day: October 3rd, 2025

help-circle



  • That Avril Lavigne is dead. From her second album onwards it’s been Melissa, a woman initially hired as s lookalike by her record company for things like meet-and-greets. When Avril died, the record company covered it up in order to keep making money.

    I love it because:

    • it’s so blatantly nonsense
    • Lavigne has very distinctive teeth and the idea of finding an exact lookalike itself is incredibly unlikely
    • people believe it anyway
    • there’s all kind of videos comparing live footage and how different her signing voice is
    • some people** really** believe it
    • it was started by a guy on his blog with an explicit statement at the start that it wasn’t true and his intent was to demonstrate how easy it was to create a conspiracy theory…







  • It also reduces available accommodation for people who need it. You can complain about what landlords have done to private ownership, but at least that’s a home someone can live in.

    With Airbnb you can charge a week’s rent per night but it’s not a home and nobody can live there.






  • It’s not just that. Employers think you’re “getting away” with…something…if you can manage to be productive while having something which advantages you.

    For one example, several firms - including Microsoft - have conducted experiments where they move an office to a 4 day, 32 hour week while paying people the same. They unfailingly found that productivity either stayed the same or went up. So, at the end of the experiment they…went back to a 5 day week. Because otherwise people are just getting an extra day off, aren’t they? When they “should” be working.

    Even if productivity went up and it was better for the company and for the workers, it was still ultimately seen as a bad thing because the workers were better off.

    Another example: at a previous job I had we got an hour’s break over the course of the day. 15 minutes 2 hours after start, 30 minutes 4 hours after start, and another 15 minutes 6 hours after start. On a Friday, however, the workday was 7 hours rather than 8. This meant that an hour before leaving people would have a 15 minute break, and then it wasn’t worth actually starting anything because before you’d have a chance to get into it you’d be getting ready to go home. So the workers went to management and said “let’s work through the last break on a Friday and go home 15 minutes early instead”. Management agreed, productivity went up, and everybody was happy at getting off an extra 15 minutes early.

    Then the old upper manager was fired and a new one took their place, and this arrangement was deemed to be “getting away with it”. Taking a final break & going home later was mandated. Suddenly none of the management who had agreed it had anything to do with the initial decision and they’d always thought it was a bad idea.

    So the workers were unhappy because they had a longer workday, less work got done because everybody was unproductive after break, and the company was getting less value for money becuse they were paying people the same amount for less work. But they thought it was a better situation because people were physically in the building for an extra 15 minutes, and therefore not “getting away with it”.

    There’s very often a mindset in management that employees are naughty children, and that strict rules must be good just because they’re rules, rather than because they actually lead to better outcomes for the company.




  • There was a story a couple of years ago about corporations trying to get people to work unpaid hours while working from home. The logic, such as it was, went like this: if you live an hour’s commute away from work and you work an 8-hour day, then you’re actually spending 10 hours of your day dedicated to work because the travel time isn’t time you get to do whatever you want in. Therefore, since you’re used to work taking up 10 hours of your time, you should also spend 10 hours working while working from home.

    It’s astonishing, really.


  • A lot of these replies are framing it as meeting someone out in the wild, but that’s not how most modern dating works. So, another reason why the pool is limited is that s lot of celebrities these days are on the dating app Raya.

    There’s a strict application process where you have to demonstrate that you’re financially successful, physically attractive, and in some way notable. It started off exclusively as celebrities but now you can also get in if you’re, say, a c-suite executive at a large firm or own your own high-value tech firm. You also pretty much have to live in LA or New York if you want to match with anybody.

    There are all kinds of rules, too. You’ll get banned for like if you take a screenshot in the app or publicly identify someone that you know is on the app. You’ll even get banned for publicly mentioning that the app exists too often.

    Because of that it’s difficult to confirm who is on it, but it’s rumoured to be incredibly popular amongst celebrities. Keirnan Shipka in an interview once declared herself to be “Raya for life”.

    These days most people meet people through dating apps. And the app that most celebrities are on is deliberately very exclusive, to the point where a middle-class person absolutely would not be allowed on it.