Previously, I had declared my feelings of affection to a female friend of mine (let's just call her Sarah because her name is Sarah). The feelings were not reciprocated, but she let me down in a weird way, she spoke about how she doesn't know how she feels, but she's not looking for a relationship at the moment. She embraces the asexuality meme which is partially how we ended up being friends.

More recently, I decided to give it another shot but to be more tactful this time. I told her I don't think I'm asexual anymore, and that I want to be in a relationship. Once again, she reiterated that she doesn't know how she feels and that a relationship isn't what she wants. Nevertheless, as always, she was nice about it and continues to actively pursue my friendship and constantly tells me she loves me.

At first, this confused me. However, I think I have some of it figured out. I have learned a bit about women and human relationships in general from this experience, and I'd like to share some of the reasons why it's almost certainly a bad idea to pursue your female friends. Now, of course there will be exceptions. Sometimes your female friend genuinely does like you and you'll have a romcom moment. My point is that that's probably not the case, and while you may view the friendship with rose-tinted glasses, she sees things totally differently.

1. They're used to it

Since they started developing breasts, women have been the center of sexual attention. It comes from all angles including older men, teachers, family members, and even other women. At some point, they get used to it and it becomes background noise. "Yes, he's ogling my breasts but I need to finish scanning my groceries".

The sexual attention also comes from male friends. You're NOT the first male friend to express romantic emotions, and you won't be the last. She's turned all of them down, what makes you think things will be different with you? She's used to it, she probably saw it coming, and she doesn't want it. If she did, you wouldn't have to ask because she'd make it obvious to you that she's romantically interested.

Now, there is the possibility of misreading signals, which brings us to the next point.

2. Women genuinely have platonic feelings

This is not to say that men are incapable of having platonic relationships. Nay, that is not my point. My argument is that it is much harder for men to do so. People shit on Steve Harvey but he was 100% correct when he said the following:

Things aren't the same with women. They can genuinely love you deeply without any sexual or romantic feelings. Why is this? Women don't have to deal with the famine mentality. For many men, s*x and love are scarce resources, so when it even vaguely seems like there's an opportunity for it, the feelings come on strong. Hence the cliche of "the cashier smiled at me now I want to marry her". (Most) women aren't leading you on intentionally when they allow intimacy into a friendship. That's the way friendships should be. But it doesn't mean she wants anything sexual or romantic.

3. You're in love because you're lonely

This is probably the crux of the issue. When you're starving, even a mud pie looks delicious. As men, you will face long stretches of loneliness and never being told you're beautiful, attractive, or worthy of anything. Inasmuch as catcalling and sexual objectification should be chastised, it at least serves as some kind of validation of one's attractiveness.

A friendship with a woman can bring about those feelings of validation within men and if you're not ready for it, it's going to develop into obsessive love. If you had higher self-esteem, more experience with women, or a source of love, your friendships with women would be completely normal and platonic. It's when these elements are missing that any smile, hug, or eye-gaze turns into fantasies of marriage.

When she inevitably turns you down, what are you left with? Nothing yet again. Nobody to say they love you or assure you that you are wanted in this world.

Things get more complicated if you're an introvert. Most relationships seem useless unless you're benefitting considerably. In your mind the thinking is "I'd only put this much effort into a relationship if I had romantic feelings". Whereas if the woman is an extrovert, it isn't costing her much mental energy to maintain the relationship. I hope that make sense.

4. She knows already

Don't bother. She already knows you like her. She accepts that as part of the cost of the friendship. That's not a bad thing. It means there's something good about you that she wants in her life even if its not of the romantic nature. You should be flattered by this even if it is heartbreaking at times.

Some women are a bit mean with this. They essentially get everything they would get from a boyfriend (someone to talk to, someone to take care of them) without the need to commit. But that's not always the case. In my case, Sarah goes out her way to be nice to me and to spend time with me. She's not using me for anything - a genuine, platonic friendship is all she wants. It's hard for my brain to wrap my head around it. I thought it was obvious that she felt something. Maybe I had to take the lead and break the ice? Nah, I'm convinced she knew ages ago I liked her but loved me enough to still be my friend despite not sharing romantic feelings.

5. You may lose everything

Life is about taking risks so I don't want to stress this point too much. However, if she doesn't already know and you spring it up on her, she may never trust you again and you will lose all the intimacy of your friendship. She will remain guarded around you, and perhaps even think of you as a slimy coomer who tried to use friendship to get into her pants. Shit can get brutal.

I've been lucky to have an understanding friends who has continued to be nice to me. I know that this isn't the case for everyone, and it also depends on how you respond to the rejection.

CONCLUSION

Heartbreak is one of the worst feelings to experience. It's like a knife constantly twisting in your chest. But it's part of life for most of us. A lucky few will find high-school sweethearts and never have to play the dating game, but for most of us, we're going to get rekt a couple times before we find the right one (if we ever do). Please, for the love of god, don't go looking for a girlfriend from your female friends. There's a difference between a girl friend and a girlfriend.

I'm probably preaching to the choir, and this may be obvious to most people here. But I know there are some autists who may need to read this to spare themselves the heartache I went through. The funny part is that if you're in love, nothing I write is going to change anything. You'll think your case is different. You'll try your luck. And you'll get rekt. But don't let me stop you. Some mistakes are meant to be made.

I know the asexuality meme isn't true. One day, she'll find a guy she likes (not me) and all that asexuality shit will disappear. And when it happens it will hurt like heck. However, I'm prepared, and I'll still be her friend. I'm wiser now thanks to the mistakes I've made. Thanks for reading.

Archaeopteryxes are about the size of a blackbird and are flying creatures that are considered the evolutionary ancestor of modern birds. They have two wide wings they use to fly and glide. However, unlike modern birds, archaeopteryxes have bony tails. They have beaks with sharp teeth which they use to tear flesh, for they are carnivorous. Prey is killed using their hyperextended second toes that hold a large claw.

We're not going to be talking about this extinct species. Instead, I'll be talking about three public freakouts. Your job is to decide if it is justified or not.

Who will clean your pottys?

This is a favorite of mine. It takes place om The View during a fierce debate surrounding Trump's anti-immigrant stance. In a bid to prove Trump's racism, kelly osborne makes a racist statement herself. She asks "if you kick every latinx out of this country, then who will be cleaning your potty Donald Trump?!" Her comment immediately elicits gasps and the camera hilariously pans to one of the latinx hosts who admonishes her.

Do you think she was being racist, or was she making a good point?

father spanks children for stealing

In this video we see a father whip the shit out of his kids for stealing. This is an ineffective form of parenting. As wikipedia tells us:

>Numerous studies have found increased risk of impaired child development from the use of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment by parents has been linked to increased aggression, mental health problems, impaired cognitive development, and drug and alcohol abuse.

It looks really sore and I'm sure those kids will never forget it. Imagine the damage that's been done between parent and child when violence is introduced.

Do you think the father did the right thing?

Look who's leaving

There's some sort of awards ceremony going on at a high school. It's clearly been going on for too long and some parents are leaving. The principle says "look who's leaving, all the black people!". This causes an uproar which then does cause all the black people to leave. In a subsequent interview, the principle blamed the ordeal on Satan.

Do you think she was making a fair observation, or was she being racist?

Conclusion

I think I got rejected by the same person twice. I'll write a long-winded post about it soon. Oh well, I think I need to learn to get over it. She doesn't have feelings for me, and that's the deal. Tune in next time when we discuss the DC Snipers.

Evening all.

I don't know how I feel about inhabiting this place. But I do know I can use it to draft.

Shiri's Slippers

Long time readers will know of my grudge with Scott Alexander, high priest of the SFBA Rationalist Cult. Previously it was suggested that we begin a bombing run of their spaces but I called a 'hold.' Honestly there's no time like the present.

Ultimately my problem with these people is that the demand the status of seriousness without being willing to do the work to be serious. In forums like /r/theschism or themotte, the topics of the day have been, bizarrely, subtracted out of the conversation.

The most important political conversation happening today is about the Supreme Court ruling on the immunity which a President enjoys.

You won't see this talked about.

See I used to think that Scott Alexander's "You Are Still Calling Wolf" was the most damaging piece Scott ever wrote. For his own reputation. For the political damage it did to the brains of his followers.

Scott Alexander doesn't think of himself as a cult leader of course, even though his followers do, and have regular struggle sessions about this fact. See this hilarious exchange in which a twitter thread praises Scott Alexander for not being a prophet.

Now I can't assume everyone has familiarity with the spiritual mechanisms Scott Alexander has engaged with. To recap: Scott Alexander self-consciously wrote Unsong to imitate schizophrenic individuals attempting to write a holy text. Scott Alexander copied the prophet motion without, apparently, understanding what it meant that he did this for his followers.

Then his followers didn't do this either.

The other very very funny recurrence at work here is the SFBA Rationalist Cult's founder, whose work included a number of overtly spiritual calls, led to an early incident in the cult history where they linked hands and sang "We are not a cult." To this day SFBA Rationalist Cultists, when they gather, engage in praise of the founder under an ambiguous amount of irony. And as you all know at this point: in a post-ironic world, all expression is genuine. (I'm referring here to the Valentine's Day musical that some postrats put on as a dating show.)

So these people all have this habitual denial of their spiritual connection. They Think They're Atheists, and atheists can't be in a cult. And if it is a cult, they think it's a benign one, a harmless one, if they're pressed. But secretly, they believe they are an elevated specimen of human thinker, and this was accomplished with Shiri's Slippers.

I thought they were a harmless cult when I first encountered them. The most devastating review of the founder's work was always: what's novel in it isn't good, and what's good in it isn't novel. The SFBA Rationalist Cult literally bricked a bunch of minds in the 2010s and we're only still figuring this out.

Because the consequences of Scott Alexander's foray into politics were that he was one of the foremost beacons of fascism denialism. These people all had a grudge against the academy. They think they're better than schooling. But then they create their own forms and fall down dead wrong.

It turns out that the fools at the academy are better equipped.

There's this crackpot tinge of resentment against the fools at the academy for rejecting their founder's bad writing as bad writing. This is one of the things that make them less a harmless cult and more a destructive torment nexus of incompetence. It's not a coincidence that these people developed idiot confidence and SBF is now under arrest for Big Fraud. They're all frauds. They can't even function as a cult because of their bizarre denial complex around their cultishness.

The consequentialist argument against the utility of the SFBA Rationalist Cult goes something like:

The consequences of Scott Alexander's writing is an island of people separated from mainstream intellectual politics. They're really alone out there.

Fascism

At this point I think it's more important than ever to drag Scott Alexander's flock kicking and screaming into accepting that they were wrong about the fascism. That doesn't mean that I need them to immediately endorse the use of the term 'fascism.'

If there's one thing that I wish they understood, it's that whatever it is that Trumpism represented, the people who were warning of the danger Trump faced were not overreacting. The wolf was real. This incompetence and waste of energy in our politics is an authoritarian bound now by legal processes. They seemed to think that Trump could never succeed at instituting a fascistic purge, and that therefore the people who were warning of Trump's desire to implement a fascist purge were overreacting.

Whether or not the wolf can succeed is somewhat independent of whether or not the wolf exists.

But the real bad wrong turn that Scott Alexander took was writing "Shiri's Scissors."

Shiri's Scissors

Scott postulated a class of controversial statement that caused irrational behavior in people, dividing them from one another. And I was confused by this at first because I was at this point understanding that these people coin phrases as if by instinct. What Scott Alexander was pointing to with "Shiri's Scissors" was the mere word

CONTROVERSIAL.

This is what made Shiri's Scissors an unnecessary concept and bad writing. Controversial topics have always existed.

And I tried to take this up with someone in Scott Alexander's circle and they resisted my notion that it was a pointless concept.

Only now do I understand that there's an alchemical process at work in Shiri's Scissors: it allows people to view controversy as enabling irrational behavior and therefore discarding them.

Instead of controversy being an invitation to dispute, a marker around discourse's present topics of conversation, Shiri's Scissor allowed these cultists to subtract themselves from discourse.

Controversial topics have always existed. Concepts which justified disregarding people who reacted to controversial topics have not.

With Shiri's Scissors

Scott Alexander Cut The Cord

TETHERING

His Cult

To Political Reality

Whether or not you want to use the term fascist, the gathering of physical forces armed with actual weapons to assault the Capitol on 1/6 was an act of war which is exactly the kind of thing the leftists have been warning about. But Scott Alexander and his flock aren't tuned into the Supreme Court hearing today on the most important subject of most thinking minds.

They put Shiri's Slippers on and just walked away. Right off of the map (IN POLITICS THE TERRITORY IS THE MAP IS THE TERRITORY) into a domain of their own making, still bitter at the fact that other people dared find their intellectual contribution bad.

See Shiri's Scissors/Slippers, as a concept, create a reality in which there's just these bizarre artifacts in discourse which are incomprehensible. It makes discourse not just unnecessary but impossible because it contains within it the assumption of the unreasonable (AND THEREFORE, TO THESE BRICKED CULTISTS, INCOMPREHENSIBLE) nature of those with which they interacted with politically.

Postscripts

Cult Takes on Christian Nationalism

An interesting sampling of the topics du jour of these spaces. Both TheMotte and TheSchism platformed this curious bit of "rationality" around the decrease in Christian Nationalism by raw percent. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is motivated reasoning: these people want to believe that fears of a Christian theocracy are overstated. TheMotte, and TheSchism.

It's not within their capacity to understand that a threatened minority might resort to fascism, the fascism might drive people away from the church, and that Christian Nationalism can still be a very real threat. These are the people who have said nothing about the Trump Supreme Court case.

Cult Takes on Lab Leak Origins for Coronavirus

Now I will admit that I'm more willing to believe that COVID came from zoonosis than I was before engaging this material. But I want to share some reading I've done in Blood Money, a book about Chinese mindsets and tactics in dealing with the US as an adversary.

Roughly, the Wuhan lab was built with the help of French scientists. Then the Chinese government kicked the French scientists out.

It was always a possible black site.

Scott Alexander's coverage of his cult's perfect thinking about perfect thinking about viruses is one of the worst things Scott Alexander wrote, but not the most damaging.

As mentioned earlier, the DEFUSE grant was rejected. Further, the grant said that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was responsible for finding the viruses, and the University of North Carolina would do all the gain-of-function research. This was a reasonable division of labor, since UNC was actually good at gain-of-function research, and WIV mostly wasn't. They had done a few very simple gain-of-function projects before, but weren't really set up for this particular proposal and were happy to leave it for their American colleagues.

Even if WIV did try to create COVID, they couldn't have. As Yuri said, COVID looks like BANAL-52 plus a furin cleavage site. But WIV didn't have BANAL-52. It wasn't discovered until after the COVID pandemic started, when scientists scoured the area for potential COVID relatives. WIV had a more distant COVID relative, RATG-13. But you can't create COVID from RATG-13; they're too different. You would need BANAL-52, or some as-yet-undiscovered extremely close relative. WIV had neither.

Are we sure they had neither? Yes. Remember, WIV's whole job was looking for new coronaviruses. They published lists of which ones they had found pretty regularly. They published their last list in mid-2019, just a few months before the pandemic. Although lab leak proponents claimed these lists showed weird discrepancies, this was just their inability to keep names consistent, and all the lists showed basically the same viruses (plus a few extra on the later ones, as they kept discovering more). The lists didn't include BANAL-52 or any other suitable COVID relatives - only RATG-13, which isn't close enough to work.

Could they have been keeping their discovery of BANAL-52 secret? No. Pre-pandemic, there was nothing interesting about it; our understanding of virology wasn't good enough to point this out as a potential pandemic candidate. WIV did its gain-of-function research openly and proudly (before the pandemic, gain-of-function wasn't as unpopular as it is now) so it's not like they wanted to keep it secret because they might gain-of-function it later. Their lists very clearly showed they had no virus they could create COVID from, and they had no reason to hide it if they did.

If there's one thing I want you to understand, it's this:

These people have almost no ability to understand deception.

The notion that China lies about the purposes of the lab just doesn't enter the picture.

Are you sure the Chinese would not use US science to create a virus that then escaped?

And then lie about it?

We're not going to know the truth. China may never reveal what it knows. But these people are not very good at finding the truth because they're not very good at understanding lies.

And these are the people who believe that AI can be 'aligned.'

They fundamentally don't understand humans. They don't understand deception.

They refuse to see the wolf of the present political era. They have deliberately chosen to walk away from mainstream politics with their Magic Stupid Slippers.

This is what a truly dangerous cult looks like. Most dangerous cults self-destruct. The bad ones are those that get big enough to confuse a large enough number of people.

POV: You're Scott Alexander and you're tired at people yelling at you about the fascism your side missed.

There's also a pattern I want to discourage, where one side will come up with some new trivial finding, or re-dredge up and re-package something that everyone already everyone else had already considered, then release it as THE SMOKING GUN! Then they release another SMOKING GUN!, and another, and after five or six SMOKING GUNS, they say their opponents are stubborn and refuse to yield to evidence, since they've obstinately ignored every single SMOKING GUN! without changing their probability even a little bit.

I've saved the chaser. This is how Scott chose to close his coverage.

But fifth, if the coronavirus' story is a comedy, all of this - Rootclaim, the debate, the $100K - is a tragedy. Saar got $100 million, decided to devote a big part of his life to improving human reasoning, and came up with a really elegant system. He was so confident in his system, and in the power of open discussion, that he risked his money and reputation on an accept-all-comers debate offer . Then some rando who nobody had ever heard of accepted the challenge, turned out to be some kind of weird debate savant, and won, turning what should have been Rootclaim's moment of triumph into a bitter defeat. Totally new kind of human suffering, worthy of Shakespeare.

I look forward to the movie, especially seeing who plays the dashing young blogger who helped the participants meet.

POV: You're the high priest of a cult of reason, worshiping a false god of perfect information, perfectly understood. These people don't just believe that salvation is possible through brainthinking alone, they believe that they have achieved salvation and are enlightened by their own intelligence.

Even as they stand in proud ignorance of contemporary politics.

First of all I'm going off on information about Krayon (sister toucher) that was already divulged by Carp and FroCho

This from the post here: https://rdrama.net/post/257327/apparently-the-user-who-dropped-users (Archive)

And this from the comment here: https://rdrama.net/post/257327/apparently-the-user-who-dropped-users/6185775#context (Archive)

So what we know know is that Krayon (sister toucher)'s allegedly named "Grant Simmons" and 952-378-7642 is his phone number

So we do a little reverse phone look up using https://www.numlookup.com/ for his number and we get "Patrick Simmons" who has the same last name. Probably a father or uncle or brother?

Area code for 952 is Minneapolis/St-Paul

When you do a search for "Patrick Simmons Minnesota"...

You get articles about some dude in St Paul who has a history of abusive behaviour towards his girlfriend stabbing her and setting her on fire killing her

Article: https://www.twincities.com/2022/03/16/woman-killed-in-st-paul-had-incredible-spirit-friend-says-in-fundraiser-for-3-daughters/ (Archive)

Simmons returned to his Bloomington home, set it on fire and drove away, the complaint said.

Co-workers went to Simmons' residence and discovered him parked nearby, and they flagged down police who were responding to the area. Officers arrested Simmons.

He had blood on his clothing, his face was covered in soot, and his facial hair and eyebrows were singed.

Simmons told investigators that Goodermont “was a witch and he did this to stand up for the babies being killed and sacrificed with witchcraft,” the complaint said.

He said he threw gasoline on Goodermont and lit it with his lighter. Police asked where he got the gas and he replied, “I got the gasoline at my house. So, yeah, it's premeditated.” He said he burned his house “because there was paranormal activity going on there.”

Last summer, Simmons was the subject of a petition for civil commitment and a court document said he was hospitalized for psychosis and receiving treatment at the time.

No attorney for Simmons, who is being held in the Ramsey County jail, was listed in the court record as of Wednesday. He is charged with second-degree intentional murder.

And if you really noootice they have the same hair colour, curly hair, facial structure and features:

We know from the articles that Patrick Simmons did a murder around March 2022

And Krayon (sister toucher) was texting FroCho using that number around September 2021 (Source: https://rdrama.net/post/14661/the-autists-last-sperg-krayon (sister toucher)-sister - Archive) when she was forced to post his "manifesto"

And based on his DMs to the jannies he seems hyperfocused on his daddy

So in a nutshell:

• phone number he texted users on this site from is registered to a Patrick Simmons

• area code shows Minneapolis/St Paul in the state of Minnesota

• googling "Patrick Simmons Minnesota" gives you articles of some guy murdering his girlfriend by stabbing and setting her on fire

• same hair colour, curly hair, facial structure, features

• same brand of lunacy

• Krayon (sister toucher) having daddy issues based on his DMs to the jannies

• timeline fits

!metashit

Please disprove me because

deep breath

Spoilers for a 20 year old TV series & TW for special interest 'tism...

The creator/showrunner/lead writer of Gilmore Girls was Amy Sherman-Palladino (ASP), and she's the main person responsible for the unique cozy vibe and fast-paced, reference-heavy dialogue of the original series. She's also something of a crazy control freak who had a very particular predefined arc in mind for the show, one that would highlight the parallels between Rory and her mother and grandmother, Emily (the 3rd Gilmore Girl). For years fans heard about the mysterious "final 4 words" that she already knew would end the series. She's like the opposite of the GoT showrunners who had no idea how the frick they were going to wrap up the ending.

ASP may be a stubborn b-word but she's a good writer with strong hat game

Except... ASP was forced out after the penultimate sixth season of the original run in a contract dispute with the network, the details of which have always been hazy. Toward the end of the sixth season, ASP added a bunch of zany plots (e.g. Lorelai throwing herself at Rory's deadbeat dad, Christopher) that almost seemed like a vindictive attempt to sabotage the show on her way out the door. The new show runners dumped into the thick of it for the seventh season did their best to tie up all the bizarre loose ends, and in doing so they moved away from the predestined fatalism of ASP's original arc - the theme of which could be loosely summed up as "no matter how you try to run away from it, you always grow up to be your mother."

Spoiled douchbag boyfriend, meet spoiled douchebag dad

For example, ASP always had in mind that Rory's rich, spoiled boyfriend, Logan, would be "her Christopher," a dissolute playboy who toys with her heart, knocks her up, and ultimately abandons her - but during the final season without ASP, the writers moved away from that storyline: Logan becomes estranged from his wealthy family, he has to stand on his own two feet, he exhibits personal growth. By the end of the series, he's ready to commit; he doesn't abandon Rory, he wants to marry her, but she decides she's not ready to settle down so young. The original series ends with Rory Gilmore, a promising young journ*list heading off to Iowa to cover the long-shot presidential campaign of a promising young Senator named Barack Obama.

The seventh season is divisive among fans for a few reasons (the hasty resolution of many of ASP's S6 landmine plots, the dialogue feels kind of off, some new characters are sloppily introduced late in the game) but I think most people enjoyed seeing Logan grow up a bit and the way his relationship with Rory matured. Most people liked the ending, and thought it was fitting to have Rory choose herself and her career over a man. There's a little bit of added millennial nostalgia/wish-fulfillment and serendipity to see Rory climbing onto the Obama campaign bus when we know he's going to win that race. As viewers, we figure Rory is off to a great start with a bright future ahead of her covering a landmark campaign up close.

Go get 'em, Ace!

Then, eight years later, Netflix gave ASP an assload of money to make A Year in the Life and she used it to take a giant shit all over Season Seven. She basically returned to Stars Hollow with the intent to settle old scores and give Gilmore Girls the ending that she knew it had to have: even if it didn't make a darn lick of sense almost a decade later. She has claimed that she has never watched S7, that she doesn't even really consider it canon. She said she had an assistant watch it and take notes for her. In AYITL, she kept one baby born in S7, and threw out almost everything else, determined to tell her version of what season 7 should have been.

Netflix: Buying your childhood to wear as a four-piece skinsuit

Lorelai and Luke (her main love interest/will-they-won't-they) act like newlyweds wrestling with the decision about whether to have kids, even though they've been married for the better part of a decade and Lorelai is pushing 50. Rory is broke, directionless and struggling like a new college grad, not like a woman in her 30s with access to a multimillion dollar trust fund. Logan is instantly back to being a useless frickboi: engaged to a beautiful woman we never see, but carrying on an affair with Rory.

The only good storyline in AYITL centers on Emily coming to terms with the loss of her husband, Richard (Rory's grandfather) and that story was forced on ASP by the real-life death of the actor Edward Herrmann. She had to actually write a new, age-appropriate story for Emily instead of dusting off whatever she wanted to do for S7, and it's so much better for it.

Poor Ed's brain cancer is the real MVP of AYITL

There's a bunch of other minor shit that sucks in AYITL: fat-shaming that feels very early-2000s and out of step with modern culture, lazily retconning certain characters to be gay for added diversity, an unfunny retread of the "Ann? Her?" gag from Arrested Development. But the main reason A Year In The Life is terrible is that ASP was too stubborn to incorporate any of the stories that other writers had given to her characters, so instead of a thoughtful extrapolation of how these characters might have lived and grown or changed over almost ten years, she did S7: ASP's Version. It's 2016, not 2007, but no one has changed at all or learned anything in the meantime.

A Year in the Life ends with the famous "final four words" that ASP had always preordained, even if they no longer make any goddarn sense from a narrative perspective:

"Mom?"

"Yeah?"

"I'm pregnant."

Barely 32 years old and having a bastard with this dude!

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, as a reward for your patience, enjoy this spot-on Mad TV parody:

Isaac, Houston, TX

Career:

• 2022 - working as Sales Rep at a Tile store, making 3-4k a month while going to school full time

  • Left job to focus on classes because he was having issues

• Doing UberEats/Doordash, also getting money from his father

  • "If I need some I'll ask and he might send it"

  • He stopped doing the gig stuff because he injured his knee timestamp

    • Can't do regular Uber because his car does not qualify

    • Has a 2012 Corolla - later clarifies that it's above the miles limit

    • "My knee hurts when I drive"

      • He drove 3 hours over to Caleb, driving 3 hours back later.

      • Something to his meniscus

• Costco opening nextdoor - planning on getting a job there

• Was a Solar Salesman at the beginning of this semester but the company closed down?

Education:

• Studying Biotech (undergrad)

• 4th year but with credits he is a junior, will be finishing in 5 years

  • Had some issues during COVID, didn't pass a lot of classes - trying to make up for that now

• 2.0 GPA overall

  • "Yeah I just got to 2.0 last semester" timestamp

• "Yeah I passed one class... in COVID" timestamp

• Failed Intro to Biotechnology class timestamp

  • "I was passing that class up until the final"

  • Failed "Fundamentals of Chemistry"

• "Why'd you pick this major" timestamp

  • He thought it sounded interesting

  • "So what's your career path"

    • "What do you mean my career path?"

• "A 2.0 is good though" timestamp

• He's taking 26 credits this semester

  • "You can't do that"

    • "Can't do that at one college"

  • "I've learned a few new techniques this semester so I'm dialed in" timestamp

    • 'Like what?"

      • "ummmmm"

    • He's just taking adderall l timestamp

• Payments to "StudyPool" timestamp

  • Website where you "get help" on your assignments

  • "I would never cheat" - this site is definitely cheating

  • Looks like it's a per assignment basis - lots of these

  • $360 last month (allegedly splits with his friend)

• NBS Facts timestamp

  • $30 payment, he says he doesn't know what that is

Finances

• Put his all tuition on his credit cards timestamp

  • An Apple card specifically

  • "I haven't missed a payment"

• Spending a lot on eating out/misc bullshit

• Self-rated a 5/10 in finances timestamp

• Credit Card 1 ($14'715) timestamp

  • $548 minimum payment

• Should he consolidate his debt timestamp

  • If he could actually control himself yes

• Missed payment timestamp

  • He says he doesn't have any but there's $40 in late fees - he paid it a day late but confused this with the concept of a missed payment

• Reasoning for putting tuition on the CC timestamp

  • thought his dad would help pay it off

  • Dad had purchased a house but needed help with the down-payment - $15'000

    • Father is letting him live there rent free and considers this repayment? Not sure if I followed this right

• Coinbase and Robinhood timestamp

  • Invested in crypto?

  • Coinbase - $3'666 in 2021, down to $60 today

  • Robinhood - $6'006, down to $6?

Miscellaneous

• Oracle ad placement

• There's some sort of on-boarding video now timestamp

  • He didn't bother watching it

• Girlfriend gets time to talk timestamp

  • Didn't know how much debt he's in

  • "I think he's nervous he's not usually like this"

  • "He gets defensive when we argue so I think that's what he was doing with you"

  • Thinking about marrying him, wouldn't until he's out of debt

  • Guy's dad doesn't actually give him that much money

• Guy applied to show through Insta

Avery, 26, Austin, TX

Career:

• 44k at some car company "building cars"

  • paid hourly, thinks it's fairly stable 40 hours a week - 10 hours a day 4 days a week, sometimes 11 or 12

Personal Life:

• Wasn't her first choice to move to Austin, she moved here because her friend already works at the car company

• 800ish rent

• Most of this section got lumped into financials

Financials:

• Checking Account

  • Overdrafts

• "I live above my means"

• Credit Card 1 ($369) timestamp

  • Paid $45 on it

  • Made $116 in purchases

  • $10 in interest added

  • She tries to explain why she hasn't paid if off - she divides her payments between her paychecks???

    • Mentions at least 5 other credit cards

• Credit Card 2 ($450) timestamp

  • Disney Rewards Card

  • Minimum payment $40

  • because she used to go to Disney but hasn't for a very long time

  • Sally Beauty $50 purchase "on a whim"

  • Also some eating out

• Credit Card 3 (2051) timestamp

  • $73 minimum payment

  • $53 interest charged

  • $30 in new purchases

    • "I needed an outfit for a concert"

    • Actually she went to Taco Bell and a Boba Tea place

  • "I'm still making my payments, that's all that matters"

  • Mentions that she will be going to see a couple more concerts. 21 Pilots and a band whose name I can't make out

  • Claims the food purchases are justified

  • Some weird explanation about how she couldn't use her card to get a protein bar and water so she went to get taco bell instead? (I assume she means the vendor didn't have a card reader?)

• Credit Card 4 ($492) (Walmart) timestamp

  • 28 minimum monthly payment

  • No new purchases on this one?

  • She usually uses it but didn't this time?

• Credit Card 5 ($5'004) (Discover) timestamp

  • She bought a computer on there?

  • Minimum payment $125

  • Interest $104

  • She doesn't really understand how interest works and has been trying to pay slightly more than minimum on all her debts? timestamp

• Credit Card 6 ($136) (Hot Topic) timestamp

  • There's a $3 fee on it? "What do you mean fee"

  • $30 minimum monthly payment

• Student Loans timestamp

  • Something about her mother taking out student loans too on her behalf and she's paying for those as well? I didn't really understand this one

    • her mom's loan is on deferment but she's still paying it while on deferment (she really doesn't understand how interest rates work)

    • Later clarified that her mother used her brother's credit to take these loans out? He knew and approved it

  • Some talk about family situation, nothing super interesting she mentions that she likes to give expensive gifts, sees that as a need not a want

  • Didn't catch how much she's paying off for the mother but she herself has $5'162

    • Was paying it off while in school - went to school for theater, got degree

  • Going to go back to school for "advanced manufacturing" - her job is covering it? Community college (ACC)

• Caleb stimming timestamp

• "So what do you do when you are low on money on your checking account but only have your credit card to survive?" timestamp

• Car (Toyota Camry) (31'972 balance) timestamp

  • $650 monthly payment

  • Storytime - weird ex-boyfriend story

  • Purchased March 2023

  • 6 year agreement

  • She thinks a 9% interest

  • Scratched on the side, damage to the windshield

    • Heat damage on the windshield? Apparently you want to roll windows down when it's very hot?

  • valued at maybe 21'000

• Income 3617 timestamp

  • "I've never really checked my finances to be honest with you"

• Checking Account timestamp

  • Highlights a nintendo charge, some eating out, google play, playstation network

  • 5 overdraft charges in a row

  • She Klarna'd some tickets and a $100 Back to The Future Lego set

• Other people borrow money from her??? timestamp

  • Her mother borrows money from her sometimes about $100? Not every month? Just rarely???

  • She overdrafts

  • "That's only once"

    • "No"

• Funny drama confrontation about her future in society timestamp

• Confrontation over phone finances timestamp

Finances Pie Chart timestamp