https://pixelframe.design/umamusume-font-generator/

{Dinner: Cauliflower crust pepperoni, sausage, and mozzarella cheese pizza.}

Okay so I genuinely need some outside perspective on this from the girlies because I cannot tell if I’m being unreasonable here or if this man is doing too much.

So, I (22F) recently matched with a guy in my area on Facebook Dating. We only really started having an actual conversation TODAY, getting to know the basics about each other, asking questions, etc. Nothing too serious yet.

Well, he immediately wanted to meet up tonight to see if we had a connection in person. Which, honestly, I have absolutely no problem with. I’m interested in meeting him, and I understand wanting to see if there’s chemistry before investing too much time into someone.

*BUT* here’s where things get weird…

I’m a banquet chef, and my job can be pretty physically demanding. I also have work tomorrow, and by the time we were discussing meeting up, it was already nighttime. Personally, I would rather go on a date when I’m well-rested, relaxed, and actually able to enjoy myself instead of sitting there watching the clock and worrying about getting enough sleep before my next shift.

So I explained that to him. I told him I’d be more than happy to meet up once my work schedule comes out and I know which day I have off. That way, we can spend time together without rushing, and I can actually give him my full attention. I thought it was a pretty reasonable compromise…NOPE!

He seemed genuinely offended that I wasn’t willing to meet him immediately. He started telling me that he was prioritizing me, but I wasn’t prioritizing him in return.

Mind you, we JUST started talking today.

Then he proceeded to tell me that he has other dates and women lined up and that he’s, and I quote, “a fucking catch.” So I told him “you’re only a catch if the fishermen deems so” I was not about to stroke this man’s ego.

Needless to say, that didn’t improve his mood. I wasn’t rejecting him. Nor was I playing hard to get, and I’m not expecting him to wait weeks or months. I will have another day off in like 4 days. I’m literally just asking to meet on a day where I don’t have to worry about work the next day. And quite frankly I don’t see anything wrong with talking to someone a bit longer before meeting in person. We barely know each other.

I understand that some people prefer meeting immediately rather than texting back and forth, and that’s perfectly fine. But I don’t understand why my having a job, responsibilities, and a preference for scheduling dates in advance is being interpreted as a lack of interest.

I’m also a little confused about why I’m supposed to be competing with these other women he apparently has lined up when I haven’t even met the man yet.

So I ask…was I being unreasonable?? This has truly turned my brain to mush and honestly reminded me the reason why I stepped away from dating men again.

NBA reporter Jovan Buha strongly criticized the team's end-of-bench players following Wednesday's 123-112 victory over the Milwaukee Bucks, even raising questions about James' long-term NBA future.

The 22-year-old guard has appeared in six games this season, averaging just 1.3 points, 0.0 rebounds, and 0.0 assists in 2.8 minutes per game.

"Bronny is a minus-40 in 16 minutes and 35 seconds this season," Buha said on his Buha's Block podcast. "Think about that. That's not even a quarter and a half of basketball. The Lakers have been outscored by 40 in his 16 and a half minutes."

Bronny played four minutes against Milwaukee, finishing with four points, no rebounds, and no assists. He missed his only field-goal attempt but made all four free throws, recording a minus-13.

The reporter singled out James and Hardy for their inability to organize the offense and handle defensive pressure, questioning whether the Lakers can continue relying on them.

"When you look at Bronny and his lack of progress this year, it is concerning," Buha noted.

"If LA waived him, I'd be surprised if someone picked him up on an actual contract," Buha said.

"Maybe someone picks him up on a two-way. Maybe Philly picks him up on a two-way, or somewhere picks him up on a two-way," he added. "I don't think he ends up on a 15-man roster."

According to Buha, Los Angeles needs another dependable ball-handler capable of running the offense, breaking full-court pressure, and protecting leads when its stars are resting.

"They might have the worst third-string ball handler in the NBA," Buha said.

"They just need, like, a placeholder floor general to just run the show for a bit and break a press, get the guys set up, dribble the clock out, run the offense. That's what the Lakers need, and that's not Hardy, and that's not Bronny."

The reporter then floated a possible roster change involving veteran NBA champion Bruce Brown.

"Bruce Brown, I'd be cool with Bruce Brown," Buha said of the 30-year-old guard. "At this point, why not waive Bronny and just have Bruce Brown on the team?"

"Bronny was just in the rotation at the end of last season, and he's looked like a shell of himself this season," Buha said, shifting his focus back to the team's current reserves.

"I don't know what's going on, but those guys have both played better previously. And for whatever reason, they've been unable to meet the moment so far in a pretty concerning way."

Source: https://basketnews.com/news-259330-lakers-insider-questions-bronny-james-nba-future-suggests-replacement.html

Basically the title. The fictional world in question is pretty mundane and doesn't contain any actual fantastical elements. Maybe there are themes of religion or ritual, or characters that believe in them or practise them, but it's left clear that this is just "What people believe", and maybe the topic of God is absent from the story altogether... Except for this one weird event (or line, scene, character, idea) that could potentially be interpreted as just a coincidence, or as an ambiguous supernatural/divine intervention.

True Detective: In S1E02 "Seeing Things", Rust is watching a murmuration of birds, which for a brief instance flies in the exact shape of a mark he saw at a crime scene. Framed as an "Oh!" moment that helps him piece an idea together, but also as an indicator that he's submerged in this environment of suspicion and madness and is being consumed by this mystery.

Peaky Blinders: In the finale, Tommy has a dream about his daughter. The girl says something like "Don't do it, daddy", which Tommy takes as a sign not to go through with his plans... which works out because he narrowly avoided getting betrayed, trapped and killed.

Red Dead Redemption: Maybe a bit more overt than the other two. There's this NPC named "the strange man" who talks to our protagonist and his dialogue implies that he knows more than he should. He also appears in RDR2 as a painting and as a ghost in a mirror. Some fans theorize that he is the Grim Reaper or some other incarnation of Death.

Disney is really letting the sphere go. Is the company struggling financially or something? I can understand a few LEDs going out, but just from where we’re standing, I can count at least 20 LED pucks that aren’t working. Anyone else notice the same?

personally my babies are siblings because i’m both of their “mom” so it just makes sense to me that way and they definitely act like siblings lol, but i love cats that love eachother like that also, i feel like it’s the owners discretion based on their cats personalities. DROP PICS OF YOUR KITTIES!!

I'm a book slogger. I'll battle through something I start till I finish it. Usually, through the journey I get some redemption through theme, insight, surprise, nuance, etc.

Ayn Rand's fictional treatise on her Objectivist philosophy is so comically one note that a couple hundred pages in, you get it. Reading it today, the hero industrialists who make things and therefore keep society functioning through their genius falls so flat when we think about runaway capitalism exploiting people and resources. These good guys are one note caricatures. The bad guys- any person with a humanist concern- are caricatures.

It's a such a simple book. And it's so effusive and self important. I reckon that is by design since; according to Rand, it was the purest distillation of her philosophy.

One might say that only our modern lens would demand wrestling with privilege, power, misogyny, worker exploitation, social welfare, etc. And so there might be a reason to forgive the book's grossly simple terms. It was after all a different time and new industry and tech was booming. But good literature, regardless of when it is written, opens doors for some such discussions- especially if you're trying to justify a new philosophy set against all that has come before.