Many people on "X" post intentionally stupid (not necessarily factually wrong, just stupid) things just so that someone will be outraged enough to respond. How do they make money off of that? I want to know because I too want the dumb things I say to be profitable.

My internet went out for a day. I hated it. I rediscovered why I stopped watching TV a long time ago. There is till nothing on. The cause of the outage turned out to be an inside job. One of our new kittens chewed through the fiber optic cable. I still like the kittens.

I'm certain that some of the X accounts and their posts are just bot accounts posting polarizing opinions and hoping for engagement. Since other bots also respond to certain topics, has anyone got a good example of bots arguing with each other?

Serious question. Since the Biden administration had access to the "Epstein files" for four years, released nothing, and given its known animosity to Trump, why are the contents of the files only starting to come out now? This makes no sense, unless EVERYONE is on the files.

Why has my X feed been 95% filled with dem lies, talking points, and propaganda lately? It's almost like someone stepped on the middle of a snake and it's now thrashing about in desperation, biting everything it still can reach.

Any time you are thinking of posting something that begins with "I will never understand ..." Just stop right there. You've already said everything that needs to be said.

I'm not saying you get the stupidest person in the world award, but you better hope AOC doesn't die.

Pepsi says it will drop some "SKUs" to be more efficient. Which means when they offer a 16 oz and a 14 oz version of the same product, they will discontinue the 16 oz product ... and then sell the 14 oz product for what the 16 oz version used to cost.

A certain hospital chain in Wisconsin basically advertises that "We are not just the best, you will probably die if you go elsewhere." They also refuse some health insurance plans who are unwilling to pay them what they demand. But sure, blame the insurance companies.

Looking back at how easy it was to get a certain demographic to show up for the "No Kings" protests, I begin to understand why the Indian scammers have such great success.

This is worth repeating: 3 people live in a Cul-de-sac. 2 of them decide the other guy must pay all taxes for their cul-de-sac. The vote is 2 to 1. That's democracy in action. And it's why we are a constitutional republic NOT a democracy.

We wanted a kitten and heard/read that getting two kittens was a better idea than getting just one. Yes. Absolutely yes. 100% yes. Except for double the vet bills, I wholeheartedly endorse getting two.

About Gerrymandering. I live in a political district where I know my vote effectively doesn't matter. Legislators in my state have chosen to NOT draw an oddly shaped district map just to make me happy. I could complain, or I could move, or I could just deal with it.

How many lower tier employees at businesses like these: - Disney theme parks - Disney movie studios - Bud Light - Jaguar - Cracker Barrel - Target - Multiple Software gaming companies (No thx to Sweet Baby Inc.) ... were adversely impacted by a few bad apples in key positions?

In the 1990s I gave a weekly ride to adult band practice to a lady whose next door neighbor had a new child every year (choice of father ... not important) so she could get the welfare benefits for having a child under age 18(?). The abuse of the system is not new by any means.

College sports playoffs are not about getting all available slots filled by the most qualified teams. They ARE about being inclusive enough to get at least the top four or so teams into the playoffs. (Remember when "number 1" was chosen by a vote?)

Apparently being able to run a 4.31 in the 40 and catch a ball does not improve your IQ.

Imagine working for a business that sells what they call: "fun tomatoes" (Really, any product that no one really needs, wants or can't just grow at home as well or better). Should an employee complain that he isn't paid enough for selling "fun tomatoes".

... and that's a lie.

The reasoning behind the social media hypotheses is that it is preventing people from developing critical thinking skills. But that also implies that the disease could be staved off (at least somewhat) by brain "exercise", and I'm not sure I buy into that.

Truth: I saw that there is a 300-400% increase in the incidence of Alzheimer's among younger (sub 50 yo) people just within the past two decades. The rush to explain why is now on. Currently the finger is pointing at social media and it's associated devices.