I’m your age and I’ve done it several times, including with my husband.

The caveat is that you start with coffee or a drink (my husband and I arranged to play mtg and have a beer), then the conversation is so nice that you order food or move from a cafe to a restaurant.

Now that I think about it, all the good relationships I’ve been in that weren’t with friends of mine involved dinner tacked onto the first date. When I’ve dated friends, it’s a very different progression, but doesn’t really involve restaurant dates at the beginning.

I also definitely would not eat there. I don’t know why it’s assumed that you would eat dinner there after being stood up. I’d be sad and I’d want to be alone, at absolute most I’d get takeout, but there’s probably a greasier takeout that I want, but have been restraining myself from. I’d very much prefer tacos/falafel to a date restaurant meal if I’ve just been stood up.

PBS/NPR?

Bodily curiosity is good and penises are funny

I assumed it was a really dark joke about missing First Nations women

Is that true regardless of her VP?

Trump proved that lip service is the only requirement

It’s cheaper

They’re actually way more convenient than that! You have a strap on the inside of the window that you can use to raise or lower the shutters as much as you like. When it’s fully closed, the light is blocked out nearly completely though.

If I’m interpreting the other poster correctly, they might be referring to what’s known as Roll-Laden in German, and they’re outside the glass.

I live in a garden level apartment (I think, it’s mostly underground with one exterior wall above ground for windows, set into a hill) and it’s extremely energy efficient. We do have to use dehydrators, but that can be done in very energy-efficient ways.

The apartments above us are significantly less energy efficient, so the big drawback I see is around housing density, which is probably a bigger issue than heating/cooling energy, but I don’t actually know.

Just look at what happened to the European royal families …

Nobody in that family would ever go near water again

I used to work at an insurance company, and all of our workers compensation stuff was called Milwaukee coverage because it used to only be required in Wisconsin

He used to be different politically, because that was cool. Now he has enough money that people will tell him he’s cool no matter what his politics are, so he now supports the causes that benefit him. I don’t think he’s ever going back.

Yeah, I was interpreting it under the lens of current legal application, not reality. In reality, it’s a group of people who want to violently oppress their fellow citizens through any means possible.

No matter who’s president? Because fighting off rebellions was a big part of what those militias were used for.

Ostensibly. They’re obviously lying, but that’s what they say.

It’s WELL-regulated, not “barely regulated at all with little to no enforcement to speak of”

It’s my understanding that the extant gun laws are legally considered to fulfill this requirement, otherwise private gun ownership wouldn’t be possible. Personally I disagree, but I’m not sure what standard would otherwise be used.

I do hope you’re correct, but I don’t trust the US government to adhere to common sense anymore. I guess we’ll see what the court says, because someone’s going to challenge this.

Or maybe he’ll get voted out in November and this will be disbanded before anything happens with it. I think that’s probably the best option, because then it doesn’t get a chance to be approved by this SCOTUS and nobody has to have their civil rights violated by this group.

To be fair, there’s a shocking number of made up words… that’s part of the fun?

It will, but the hard part’s getting everyone else to go along with it

They’re training them to protect federal infrastructure and they’re still subject to gun regulations. I think it will be a political tool used to oppress the citizenry, so not the spirit of the law, but the letter.