I still drive the speedlimit on GPS measurement (and when available those speed measure points next to roads), but if some asshole is going like 20 over then I slow down to 1 km/h below on the dash.
I just put the speed limiter to the limit +2 km/h, why +2? Because radars won’t pick that small difference and drivers usually when trying to go to the limit they go a liitle bit faster and it’s annoying to have people pass you all the time.
It IS satisfying sometimes watching some asshole try to weave in and out of lanes to get ahead in your mirror, only to just barely miss being able to cut you off and have to get in behind you.
Surprised this is getting as many upvotes as it is. It totally depends on context. I’ve seen posted 35 mph speed limits on 6 lane roads where every is going minimum 50mph, even with cops in the flow of traffic. I’ve also been on 2 lane roads (e.g opposing traffic is directly next to you) and the posted speed limit is 55mph.
If you’re doing the speed limit in the second one, well done. If you’re going 15-25mph below the flow of traffic in the middle or fast lane, because of a posted speed limit, that’s a problem.
Well yeah, they were going below the speed limit. That creates dangerous conditions.
If they were doing 65 in a 65 and everyone else was doing 85, the cops can’t do shit because they’re literally following the law.
And if my going the speed limit is “dangerous”, then it’s the regulations that are wrong. Not me. They should change the speed limit if it’s a problem for me to follow the posted laws. I’m not the one causing danger, the law is.
Legally that’s literally what it is - a cop has the legal authority to pull you over for going 1 mph over the speed limit and give you a ticket for it. Obviously in the real world the enforcement of speed limits is way different from the actual letter of the law, but it’s really no trouble for me to just match my speed to the speed limit. It’s not like speeding actually saves you that much time.
No, I’m pointing out how seem to think going below the limit is also a crime that cops can pull you over for.
They can ticket you for unsafe driving if you’re going significantly below the speed of traffic. And in my area there is actually a minimum speed on the freeways.
But the way you worded it made it sound like you think you have to go exactly the speed limit at all times.
There are parts of English that are simple and there are parts that are complex. Same as any language! The cool thing about linguistics is learning about the neat features of some languages. For example, Chinese doesn’t use articles!
Gendered articles probably not but having “a” vs “the” removes the need for additional cases (eg. I/me/my). Latin and Russian don’t have articles but they have more cases which have different suffixes that have to be applied to all nouns. Usually simplifying one part of language makes another part more complex. English has a very simple case structure but the word order is much more strict
Gendered articles, like all things relating to grammatical gender, can be useful to reduce ambiguity and therefore increase information density/redundancy. They’re basically the Roman languages’ way of retaining the usefulness of Latin cases without actual grammatical cases.
“Ami” and “amie” are homophones in French (with some accents you might see /ami/ vs /ami:/, but in casual speech you’d likely miss it anyway). However “un ami” is different from “une amie”.
So in French you’d say “hier je suis sorti avec une amie” which, to convey the same level of detail in English, requires a translation like “yesterday I went out with a female friend”.
“Die See” is only an exception. It’s origins are in the Platt languages bordering belgium and the netherlands iirc.
Don’t we talk about the usefulness of gender articles? There are some outliers. Adding gender articles increases the vocabularies by a factor of two but at what cost and what’s the real advantage? You can simply invent a new word for one of the “Bands” to reduce ambiguity in order to decrease the complexity of the language. I think you can compare it to irregular verbs. Those are just there for historic reasons, they don’t really serve a real purpose. Du/Sie is another example. It may be useful in some cases to maintain distance. Moreover we should get rid of the corner case “royal we” asap! Etc. The sooner we start the better.
Simplicity isn’t the goal of languages, but communication. England historically had a lot of different languages and dialects that tried communicating with each other, so the language got simpler to speak and understand.
German, Russian, Italian, etc. all existed in relatively homogenous so information density was far more important. Some languages use gendered articles, which also increases understandibility (if someone is mumbling a word you can still guess it).
Sie is actually a really interesting case, because it shifted meaning over time, from being a sign of respect, to being an indicator of closeness, but it still carries information.
"Lassen Sie mich in ruhe“
and
"Lass mich in Ruhe“
both translate to “leave me alone”, but the first one carries the information that these people don’t know each other and it might make sense to interfere.
And most importantly: your comparison to irregular verbs and idea to just change the word doesn’t make any sense. Gender is part of the word, so creating a new word would just be a waste of time, so it’s the same thing as just learning a new verb. Irregular verbs are a completely different thing since they don’t follow the rules of the language, so you have to learn two extra words, instead of just learning one and following the rules.
And reusing the same word to mean a plethora of completely unrelated things lol.
EG:
Jam = a fruit preserve, to play music, stopped traffic, a door that’s held open, to cram something into something else
Set = a collection of something, to change an option on a device, when something gelatinous becomes more solid, when the sun goes down, a stage or movie background, a list of songs at a concert, to put something down, and about 50 other things
Run = to move quickly, to enter a contest (ie run for President), to have something turned on (is that computer running, running a tap), to be a certain length (this films run time is 90 minutes), to be behind (this bus is running late), to be in charge of something (I’m running this place), a hand in poker, to be liquid (this egg is runny), a tear in a pair of tights
Umziehen - to change clothes, to move to a new home
aufziehen - to tease or ridicule someone, to wind up a clockwork, to raise kids
abziehen - to leave, to scam someone, to pull something off something else
herziehen - to gossip about someone
Anziehen - to attract something, to put on clothes
Yeah there are some of these for ziehen. You might be on to something. But for many generic verbs there are many variants with vastly different meanings. Like Machen - to make, or tun - to do, gehen - to go.
The real kicker is phrasal verbs. You can have alright conversational English without needing most of these “advanced” grammatical features, which is a big part of why English has a reputation of being easier to learn in school than other European languages like German or Dutch.
It’s when you’re faced with a vocabulary list like “get up”, “get on”/“get off”, “get in”/“get out”, “get through”, “get on”/“get along”, “get by”, “get across”, “get away with”, “get back”, and a myriad of other which in your native language each get a dedicated verb that you realize that English is not simpler, the complexity is just further up the road.
Also fun fact, if your native language is French, you can cheat and never use most of those, while accidentally using a much more formal/elevated register, because English has a habit of stealing French words when it wants to sound fancy.
“Get in” = enter (entrer), “Get through” = traverse (traverser), “Get by” = survive (survivre), “get across” ~ communicate (communiquer), “get back” = return (retourner).
It’s all of the above and then some. A good read on the subject is John McWhorter’s “Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue.” It’s intended for a non-technical/popular audience and doesn’t get too deep into the weeds so you don’t need a degree in linguistics to follow it.
A lot of the problem is that we use Middle English spellings for a lot of words, but the pronunciation continued to change after the spellings were standardized.
Willing to bet the lemmy platform is more likely to get support from the type of person that would also pay for an app like sync than it is to get money from people that like to grandstand like OP.
I’ve donated to Lemmy, Beehaw, and Mastodon and came here because Reddit killed Sync. Lemmy is full of gatekeepers and it’s bringing the platform down. Half the posts are whining about reddit and the other half are whining because someone doesn’t adhere to the perfect open source ethos and shun anything not completely free. It’s getting tiring. No wonder Lemmy’s active user count is decreasing.
I’m thinking the sync app will entice enough people with… differing views that the in-place gatekeeping will lose its bite.
I appreciate the FOSS ecosystem, but the people around here seem to think that you should never be able to sustain a living from writing software. Like I should just go back to construction and only write code on the side.
I’m pro nuke energy but to pretend there are no downsides is what got us into the climate mess we are in in the first place.
Cost, being a major drawback, space being another. And of course while they almost never fail, they do occasionally, and will again. And those failures are utterly catastrophic, and it’d hard to convince a community to welcome a nuclear plant, and if the community doesn’t want it then it can’t or shouldn’t be forced onto them.
They also represent tactical strike sites in time of combat engagement. Big red X for a missile.
There are also significant environmental concerns, as we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe or efficient manner at this time.
It’s likely that nuclear based energy is the future, but you need to discuss the bad with the good here or we are just going to end up at square one again. There are long term ramifications.
Worth noting that all modern failures have been GE models or ancient Westinghouse models. Modern nuclear reactors built by Westinghouse are virtually immune from meltdown, and Westinghouse is the lead player in new builds. Nuclear safety has come miles since the like of Fukushima, and especially 3 Mile Island. I’d feel perfectly safe living near a new Westinghouse nuclear plant.
There are no unsinkable ships. No matter how safe the Titanic is, keep enough of them on the sea and one will eventually sink the way least people expected. If life on Earth depends on a Titanic never sinking…we’re fucked eventually.
Life on Earth depends on no more than a couple on nuclear plants blowing up catastrophically.
I agree with everything you say. It really is spot on. What I don’t understand is how, with your awareness, do you still consider yourself pro-nuclear. Honest question, I really am curious.
This is a shocker for many on social media but you can accept that something you want is not perfect but still want it, or see good in a bad person, but still not want them on the throne.
Just because I can be realistic about it’s pros and cons instead of blindly parroting that I have been told to parrot doesn’t mean I can’t be pro nuclear.
Other power sources have more problems. And I say just launch the waste into space and eventually the reactors will just be out of the stratosphere and it won’t matter if it explodes.
But you got to walk before you can run.
I just dislike when people pretend there are no downside to nuke, EV, wind, etc, because if they make one little comment on a con suddenly they’re some anti enviro Trump sucker and get dogpiled
There’s a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it’s flawed.
I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don’t agree but I understand the thought process. It’s a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn’t make sense.
Mind you, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m genuinely intrigued and curious.
I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.
Nuclear fission not so much, but it’s definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.
Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.
This immediately discards like, everything you’ve said up until now, though. It matters if it explodes on the way up challenger style and irradiates half of the continent with a massive dirty bomb of nuclear waste. It’s way more cost effective, efficient, and safer to just put it somewhere behind a big concrete block and then pay some guy to watch it 24/7, and make sure the big concrete block doesn’t crack open or suffer from water infiltration or whatever.
I mean to be fair you do make it pretty easy to discredit your entire argument, when you’re just gonna say that anyone calling you out on this very obviously stupid idea is a bot. Like that’s the same thing again.
Maybe I’m a victim of Poe’s law, but I’ve seen “launch nuclear waste into space” get way more repute than it deserves as an idea from people who have no clue about the actual issues with, even just normal aspects to do with energy generation. It’s a shorthand signal that lets me know that someone’s had all their thinking on it done for them by shitty pop science and shitty science journalism. It’s like if someone believes in antivax, or something. I’m probably not going to really think they’re a credible source, after that. This is also bad if the shit they’re saying is itself lacking in external sources which I can rely on outside of them.
I’m also flexing my brain right now because none of the shit you said at all really backs up the idea the nuclear energy is the future. Like, if you think it’s inevitable that more plants collapse and it’s inevitable that nuclear power plants get destroyed by missiles in times of war (also a great idea, on par with disposing of it in space, let me irradiate the exact area I’m trying to capture for miles and miles around), then you wouldn’t want nuclear power. If you believe in that and then you also believe in the overblown problem of nuclear waste, then there’s not really a point, there’s no point at which the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
The reason people aren’t going to accept nuclear if they believe it has cons is because like half of those cons are, albeit overblown, catastrophic for life on the planet, and the other half are failures to conceptualize based on economic boogeymen, just the same as with solar power. Political will problems, rather than problems with physical reality or core technologies. But still, problems that conflict with the existence of the idea itself.
You’re not going to convince people to go in on nuclear power, your stated idea, if you only point out it’s flaws, and then also post ridiculous shit.
Given that solar and wind are cheaper, get built to schedule and far less likely to have cost overruns, this meme is bullshit.
Sure, nukes are great. But we need clean energy right the fuck now. Spending money on new nukes is inefficient when it could be spent on solar and wind.
Renewables are cheaper per kwh, but it’s yet to be seen if they’re cheaper when you get to higher grid renewable percentages and need to involve massive grid storage.
In the US we already have something like 30% which alleviates pretty much all the storage concerns. For our dollar right now, solar and wind are the best place to invest.
We already have 30% nukes. Right now we need more solar and wind. I’m not saying shut down nukes. They are good. They are just a waste of money and time to build new when we have cheaper and easier to produce alternatives.
Correct, but don’t forget that renewables is an umbrella term.
If you use solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal and bioenenergy, you’re diversified and it’s all renewable. Add in storage and there’s not much of an issue anymore.
Are you really bringing up resource limitation when your point is energy sources that depend on finite fuel?
Besides, the current form of renewables is the best option we have right now, so we should put all efforts into that. Once we find something better, absolutely go for that.
Uranium is actually quite common on earth, hence it not being included in the rare Earth’s minerals. Go get a shovel full of dirt. Anywhere on earth that shovel of dirt on average will contain something like a micro or nanogram of uranium. Shit’s everywhere.
People just feel like there has to be a catch with renewable energy and latch onto the idea of rare earth metals. Besides cobalt having some use in some kinds of lithium batteries right now, theres not really rare earth stuff going into renewables. Solar panels are silicon and aluminum, wind turbines are simple machines connected to a magnet spinning inside coils of copper, lithium batteries are already being made with iron as the other component.
This, this should be common sense, and I don’t understand why it’s not.
Okay, so, say I need some energy that’s pretty dense in terms of the space that it takes up, say I need a large amount of constant energy draw, and say that I need a form of energy that’s going to be pretty stable and not prone to variation in weather events. I.e. I seek to power a city. This isn’t even really a far-fetched hypothetical, this is a pretty common situation. What energy source seems like the best for that? Basically, we’re looking at hydropower, which generally has long term environmental problems itself, and is contextually dependant, or nuclear.
Solar also makes sense, wind energy also makes sense, for certain use cases. Say I have a very spread out population or I have a place where space is really not at a premium, as is the case with much of america, and america’s startling lack of population density, that might be the case. But then, I kind of worry that said lack of population density in general is kind of it’s own ongoing environmental crisis, and makes things much, much harder than they’d otherwise need to be.
I think the best metaphor for nuclear that I have is the shinkansen. I dunno what solar would be, in this metaphor, maybe bicycles or something. So, the shinkansen, when it was constructed, costed almost double it’s expected cost and took longer then anyone thought it would and everybody fucking hated it, on paper. In practice, everybody loves that shit now, it goes super fast, and even though it should be incredibly dangerous because the trains are super light and have super powerful motors and no crash safety to speak of, they’re pretty well-protected because the safety standards are well in place. It’s something that’s gone from being a kind of, theoretical idiot solution, to being something that actually worked out very well in practice.
If you were to propose a high speed rail corridor in the US, you would probably get the same problems brought up, as you might if you were to plan a nuclear site. Oh, NIMBYs are never gonna let you, it’s too expensive, we lack the generational knowledge to build it, and we can patch everything up with this smaller solution in e-bikes and micromobility anyways. Then people don’t pay attention to that singular, big encompassing solution, and the micromobility gets privatized to shit and ends up as a bunch of shitty electric rental scooters dumped in rivers and a bunch of rideshare apps that destroy taxi business. These issues which we bring up strike me as purely being political issues, rather than real problems. So, we lack generational knowledge, why not import some chinese guys to build some reactors, since they can do it so fast? Or, if we’re not willing to deal with them, south korean?
I’m not saying we can’t also do solar and renewables as well, sure, those also have political issues that we would need to deal with, and I am perfectly willing to deal with them as they come up and as it makes sense. If you actually want a sober analysis, though, we’re going to need to look at all the different use cases and then come up with whichever one actually makes sense, instead of making some blanket statement and then kind of, poo-pooing on everything else as though we can just come up with some kind of one size fits all solution, which is what I view as really being the thing which got us into this mess. Oooh, oil is so energy dense, oooh, plastic is so highly performing and so cheap and we don’t even have to set up any recycling or buyback schemes, oooh, let’s become the richest nation on the planet by controlling the purchasing of oil. We got lulled into a one size fits all solution that looked good at the time and was in hindsight was a large part in perhaps a civilization ending and ecologically costly mistake.
You know renewables aren't even the same thing as nuclear right?
renewables aren't consistent and it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere.
We already have over-capacity of renewables.
Spending money on more doesn't help when there's no where to put that energy.
I’m curious how you think adding nukes have an advantage here. You understand that nukes are not easily shut down? If we have a problem with an over abundance of energy, adding nukes to the grid only makes that problem worse.
Have you any idea how a modern day grid functions?
The only other thing that can provide a reliable baseload 24h/day is hydro, which in upon itself is high $$$ to implement and has its own environmental issues.
You should familiarize yourself with the complexities of grid management.
That’s the fun part about being in a place where you can hold a discussion. Some people don’t agree with you, but they can still see the benefits of the option you are talking about or even agree that they are a great solution for now.
The funny this is that I was a nuke person for a long time, until the facts changed. Nukes were really great fifteen years ago. But solar and wind have surpassed them in terms of cost so my opinion changed. Good shit.
Are solar and wind really “clean” energy? Everyone in this thread seems to ignore the costs of these methods.
Every modern wind turbine requires 60 gallons of highly synthetic oil to function, and it needs to be changed every 6 months. That’s a lot of fossil fuel use.
Lithium mining for batteries is extremely destructive to the environment.
Production of solar panels burns lots of fuel and produces many heavy metals. Just like with nuclear waste, improper disposal of these toxic elements can be devastating to the environment.
Of course, solar and wind are a big improvement over coal and natural gas. I dont want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, I just want to be realistic about the downfalls of these methods.
I believe, with our current technology, that nuclear is our cleanest and greenest option.
Ok so, realistically, if we all agree on this today, when would new nuclear power plants begin generating electricity? With all the regulations which are in place today?
If we “all agree” and do a moonshot construction plan we could have electricity in 8 years. This is a fantasy, tho.
Best case scenario in the real world is operational in 12 years.
In the capitalist hellscape here in the US, a reasonable expectation would be 18-20 years.
20 years also happens to be the lifespan of our wind turbines. In 20 years, all of the currently running wind turbine blades will be in a landfill and new ones will need to be manufactured to replace them.
No reasonable person is suggesting nuclear as a short-term option. It’s a long term investment.
≈20-30 years, outside of China. They should have the first molten salt reactors being turned on in another 8 years or so, but they started those projects in 2020
Global leader in nuclear is also China. They are actually building the reactors that cannot meltdown, but you also can’t make weapons from them, and they can run on the nuclear waste we have already produced with the crappy cheap reactors we use. We designed the reactors that China is now building 60 fucking years ago, and just shelved the design.
Windmil blades need to be replaced far more often than anything even half that expensive at nuclear facilities and require huge costs in chemicals and transportation. Off shore blades need even more frequent replacement. The best gelcoats in the world arent going to stave off salty air and water spray for long, and as soon as water gets in one small spot, the entire composite begins to delaminate. You don’t pay as much down the line with nuclear and you dont have to worry about offsetting the carbon output of manufacturing new blades so frequently.
If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don’t know why I should pick nuclear. It’s going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can’t secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.
A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?
Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that’s going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.
Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.
That reason ain’t getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.
Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn’t take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn’t.
The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.
Renewables don’t take much skilled labor at all. It’s putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).
China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.
This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.
One time we saw this weener slinger in a parking lot that basically had a drive-thru operation going and we got intrigued but wernt hungry at the time.
So we went out looking for him again on another day and found him somewhere else and got ready for some dinner glizzies, but he was charging $14!
We had come all this way so we had to still get them and they were very good with a side of fries and a canned drink but no matter what $14 for a hot dog is just not right
I mean if LLM/Diffusion type AI is a dead-end and the extra investment happening now doesn't lead anywhere beyond that. Yes, likely the bubble will burst.
But, this kind of investment could create something else. We'll see. I'm 50/50 on the potential of it myself. I think it's more likely a lot of loud talking con artists will soak up all the investment and deliver nothing.
It’s looking like a dead end. The content that can be fed into the big LLMs has already been done. New stuff is a combination of actual humans and stuff generated by LLMs. It then runs into an ouroboros problem where it just eats its own input.
Yeah, I was thinking more if there's either an evolutionary improvement or revolutionary (or some movement toward AGI). For me it's better if not, so I get to keep my job for a few more years. But, my general feeling is with the cash injection, there's some chance of a breakthrough.
I mostly agree, with the caveat that 99% of AI usage today just stupid gimmicks and very few people or companies are actually using what LLMs offer effectively.
It kind of feels like when schools got sold those Smart Whiteboards that were supposed to revolutionize teaching in the classroom, only to realize the issue wasn’t the tech, but the fact that the teachers all refused to learn and adapt and let the things gather dust.
I think modern LLMs should be used almost exclusively as an assistive tool to help empower a human worker further, but everyone seems to want an AI that you can just tell ‘do the thing’ and have it spit out a finalized output. We are very far from that stage in my opinion, and as you stated LLM tech is unlikely to get us there without some sort of major paradigm shift.
To be fair, electronic whiteboards are some of the jankiest piles of trash I’ve ever had to use. I swear to God you need to re-calibrate them every 5 minutes.
bubbles have nothing to do with technology, the tech is just a tool to build the hype. The bubble will burst regardless of the success of the tech at most success will slightly delay the burst, because what is bursting isnt the tech its the financial structures around it.
See Sun Microsystems after the .com bubble burst. They produced a lot of the servers that .com companies were using at the time. Shriveled up after and were eventually absorbed by Oracle.
Why did Oracle survive the same time? Because they latched onto a traditional Fortune 500 market and never let go down to this day.
I doubt it. Regardless of the current stage of machine learning, everyone is now tuned in and pushing the tech. Even if LLMs turn out to be mostly a dead end, everyone investing in ML means that the ability to do LOTS of floating point math very quickly without the heaviness of CPU operations isn’t going away any time soon. Which means nVidia is sitting pretty.
As far as I understand, the GPUs that LLMs use aren’t exactly interchangeable with your regular GPU. Also, no one needs that many GPUs for any traditional use cases.
A good macaroni cheese is built from a roux, and uses several cheeses to get that flavour.
With that being said, I don’t get why Americans lose cheese so much. It’s fine, I guess? I would much prefer most other pasta sauces over cheese, because cheese alone is just a bit bland.
It’s like Oreos. I think it’s things that are cultural. You probably can’t get into it once your taste has already been shaped. But if you grew up with it, it’s different. We probably all have such things at home. Although typically not from the horrifying US big food conglomerates, which maybe makes them a bit less atrocious.
I love pineapple on pizza, but the key to its greatness is using small pieces on top of the cheese and even giving them a little squeeze before cooking to prevent an over abundance of juice.
For kiwi on a pizza to be even mildly appetizing at face value IMO the pieces would need to be quite small. I don’t want a mouthful of sweet. A hint of sweet along with all the saltiness in the pizza is what makes sweet/salty pizzas amazing.
Green olives on pizza are king, unfortunately no where near me seems to do them. My gf worked in a pizza place for a while and i used to get her to secretly make me pizzas using the green olives they use for starters
Pineapple belongs on pizza. Only stuck up assholes who never tried it say otherwise. Ever tried pickles? Pizza with onions, sausage and pickles is great.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.