• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • The adjustment period is real. I was showering twice a day when I stopped shampooing, because my hair (lots of it, but fine and not coarse) got greasy quick. After a few weeks, it normalized. I can shower once a day now. I still wash it by running my fingers and water through it over and over, so it doesn’t smell. I still have a somewhat dry scalp though, it didn’t really fix that. Don’t really have dandruff, but if I scratch my scalp a bunch or use a comb directly on it several times, I’ll have to rinse the dandruff out.


  • Same, although I’ve been going for longer than two years. Honestly, I cant really remember when I stopped use shampoo. But if I don’t shower for a day, it starts looking a little greasy. I have lots of straight fine hair, run the water and my fingers through it rigorously in the shower, and then I come out, scrunch it with the towel (dont rub, it will break the hair fibers) and then air dry. Get compliments on my hair all the time.

    As for smell, it just smells like hair. It can get slightly more pungent if I dont shower, but otherwise it just smells like me. Every once in a while I ask my full-poo GF to check if my hair smells because my own noseblindness, and she hasn’t told me to go shower yet.

    Definitely when you go from poo to no-poo, your hair is extra greasy. I don’t know the science behind it, but it seems to over produce oils and takes a couple weeks to normalize. During that period I was showering once in the morning and once at night, again running my fingers and water through my hair for ~2-3 minutes straight. After a while my hair didnt get so greasy.

    When I use soap or shampoo, my hair loses all of its body and shine doesn’t go back to normal for a day or so.

    I imagine for some people this works, but for others it doesn’t. I do feel a little weird when people ask me what my “secret” is and I’m literally like “yeah just don’t wash it lol”


  • This particular attack probably had nothing to do with any of this, but she could probably be described as offensive from the economic equality standpoint, because she is a billionaire, from the environmental justice standpoint, because she is a frequent private-jet user, and from the music scene standpoint, because she seemingly intentionally pushes out other female artists from billboard spots by re-releasing albums in specific locations/time periods during which her peers are releasing their albums.



  • This sub makes me think I have ADHD. Constant multitasking (audiobooks with whatever other brainless activity), or else so hyperfixated on a thing that I forget to eat, 4 empty cups of water at my desk, putting off responding to texts and then three days later realizing i never responded at all, forgetting about a problem I need to fix or errand I need to run until something reminds me of it.

    Just juggling a bunch of interests because, with a day job, there’s really no way to simply hold on to each one for very long.

    Oh and then smoking marijuana.







  • The top comment on this thread contains a conversation (argument) about Chomsky’s view on the term “genocide,” as well as his verbiage discussing Serbian-run concentration camps.

    I listened to Understanding Power fairly recently and it definitely changed my outlook and broke me out of the lull of neoliberal self-satisfaction, and helped introduce me to other leftist writers. So I’m a fan of Chomsky’s, but it doesn’t sound like he had that good of a take on the Bosnian genocide. He seems to only reserve the word genocide for the Holocaust so as to keep its significance, and despite supporting a UN fact-finding commission that did find Serbia was running concentration camps, he refers to said camps as “refugee camps,” instead, and seems to infer people had the freedom to stay or leave as they please (even if this was technically true, I doubt it was practically true).

    So, not a good look for him, even though he had other viewpoints that I’ve been strongly influenced by.


  • Ideologically Ubuntu makes me cringe, but I also use Google and a host of other technologies that fuck my privacy, so I guess I have accepted the world we live in.

    In the same way that I think it’s noble when people try to live waste free, I think it’s noble to use things like GrapheneOS, or selfhost all your services, or de-Google your tech. But it’s unrealistic for all of the world to live waste-free or customize their tech so as to be private. In the end, the government needs to step in and force these giant-ass companies to behave better, because they are the primary forces pushing forward the destruction of the environment and personal privacy.



  • jwiggler@sh.itjust.workstolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldSeen this countless times
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Hate saying it, but Ubuntu just works for me. I’d rather focus my computer configuration and maintenance efforts on clients rather than my own laptop. If I have to reinstall for whatever reason, its pretty easy because I’m already very familiar with the (shitty) installer, and I don’t do much customizing because I’d rather not have to go through that every time I reinstall.

    Granted I’ve never even bothered to run Arch, or any really other desktop distro for that matter. Ubuntu + Gnome looks nice, seems to just work, all I need to do is apt install nvidia drivers and firefox post-install and I’m up and running. I don’t want to do work on my laptop, I want my laptop to enable me to do work.


  • But the person above said

    While technically true for some but not all places, in reality it’s just not a practical thing anymore as it has been displaced by motorized transportation and social media being where 99% of the people are, respectively.

    You’re allowed to try to make people notice a website with no social media presence in the same way as you’re allowed to run for congress as an independent with a budget of the necessary registration fees plus $5.

    Aren’t they pretty much saying the exact thing that you’re claiming nobody is saying? That in practice it’s still easy to create your own website, but nobody will use it because 99% of people are on social media platforms, instead

    I dunno maybe I’m missing something.


  • I agree with you and the original guy – the web is still just a collection of interconnected computers, and it’s still open and mostly inexpensive anyone to host a website on. The trouble for the individual is the maintenance cost, especially if their site sees high traffic. But that brings us back to the idea that you’ll pretty much never see the same userbase as the large social media platforms.

    This isn’t to say that the power held by Google, Meta, Snapchat, or TikTok to direct information any which way they would like doesn’t need to be dismantled. It’s just that the web is still free, in the sense that it is just a road to another computer, and you can still prop up a house with an address on that road for relatively cheap.




  • Obviously this article is meant to cast the Pope in a bad light, but honestly I’m not going to fault the dude for invoking historical figures who proved to be beneficial to his own order.

    I mean, how many times do people invoke the image of Teddy Roosevelt in the US? Dude was hot for war, all the time. Or Abe Lincoln, who, prior to freeing the slaves, would claim that whites were still superior to blacks (depending on his political audience), and would advocate for the relocation of blacks to another country, similar to the US government’s efforts made against Native Americans.

    Invoking historical figures is so often a bad move, but how can you fault a person for not knowing these things? Roosevelt and Lincoln are gods in the US. Andrew Jackson was the king of the free man, a paragon of libertarianism, rose straight up from the ground to the presidency. But I’m sure the Native Americans felt otherwise.

    As for the Pope thinking the attack was provoked by NATO and not wanting to condemn Russia, well that’s kinda horseshit. Because Russia deserves condemnation for preemptive war in the same way that NATO deserves blame for outfitting more bases along the Russian border, and the US deserves blame for their interference in Ukrainian politics in 2014.


  • Its just a lack of consistency, I don’t know what to tell you. You can’t tell me the US sends military aid to Ukraine in order to “defend democracy,” when in numerous other cases of sovereign countries being occupied, we do nothing, or we even support the occupiers, in Palestine’s case.

    This lack of consistency lends itself to the idea that there are further interests besides “defending democracy” for which we send Ukraine weapons. I’m not sure how else to put it. If it were about the moral imperative of defending occupied people’s, you can pick out numerous similar examples where we have not acted, and you just have to conclude that there are other factors behind the US sending aid to Ukraine. One is the perceived threat the country feels from Russia, which I think is probably exacerbated by the press. One is the perpetuation of the constant war economy we have, and one is the increased political unity that war brings.

    But I’m curious about your position, you’re dismissing my arguments as “whataboutism,” but what exactly would you assert instead? Do you think that Ukraine deserves our aid more than Palestine does? Is it that Russia is a grave threat to the United States? I’m genuinely curious