21–30 of 142 posts
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
Only if you don't have cats. If you have cats, "under" is the only sane choice.
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
Aw man, this sounded like just my kind of place. But... > It’s a sentiment eagerly embraced by The Dull Men’s Club. Several million members in a number of connected Facebook groups strive to cause dullness in others on a daily basis. Apparently I'm too dull to even have a FB account. I know it's a bit tongue in cheek, but in the name of maximum dullness, something with UX closer to this site seems much more appropria…
Reminds me of the proof that all natural numbers are interesting. If there is some set of uninteresting natural numbers, there must be a minimal element of that set. It being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting which is a contradiction.
Perhaps the minimal element should be removed from the set; there will be plenty of members that still remain.
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
What traits are correlated with overing?
Do underers look at the world differently?
And it is a false dichotomy. Some people just don't care what direction when they replace the roll - what's a suitable name for that clade? And then there's the people who use the floor and ignore the holder.
Reminds me of the proof that all natural numbers are interesting. If there is some set of uninteresting natural numbers, there must be a minimal element of that set. It being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting which is a contradiction.
No banana for scale?
Reminds me of the proof that all natural numbers are interesting. If there is some set of uninteresting natural numbers, there must be a minimal element of that set. It being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting which is a contradiction.
Why aren't all numbers in the set uninteresting? Did someone make a mistake when defining it? Perhaps the minimal element should be removed from the set; there will be plenty of members that still remain.
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
The Dull Men's Club group of facebook is actually oddly interesting. I would classify it more as a group who point out the very small oddities of every day life that are not very interesting. There is a post where someone saw two geese with 42 bay geese, another where the rental company fixed a door with a piece of pool noodle. Its more like a "huh that's kind of weird I guess" group.